Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"

Religions > Atheism > Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	09 Aug 2004 11:03:13 PM
Object:	Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"

Information as a Measure of Variation
by William Dembski (a creationist)
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html
(which has a link to an 18-page PDF)
Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing,
it facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.
.

User: "Alan Wright"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	10 Aug 2004 11:48:28 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408092013.92466da@posting.google.com...

Information as a Measure of Variation
by William Dembski (a creationist)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html
(which has a link to an 18-page PDF)

Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing,
it facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.

Dembski apparently intends to try to prove that life demonstrates
informational discontinuities that imply that a continuous evolutionary
process could not have produced it (i.e. could not have traversed
certain gaps - much like irreducible complexity). Where things will
get dicey is when he tries to connect up the mathematical abstractions
with biological systems. No doubt he will make similar illogical leaps
as he did when trying to justify his explanatory filter or when abusing
the NFL theorems.
Alan
.

User: "R. Baldwin"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	10 Aug 2004 02:21:37 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408092013.92466da@posting.google.com...

Information as a Measure of Variation
by William Dembski (a creationist)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html
(which has a link to an 18-page PDF)

Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing,
it facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.

The article reflects Dembski's usual muddled version of Information Theory.
For example: "The mathematical theory of information is largely about
quantifying the complexity of such strings, characterizing their statistical
properties when they are sent across a noisy communication channel (noise
being represented as a stochastic process that disrupts the strings in
statistically well-defined ways), preserving the strings despite the
presence of noise (i.e., the theory of error correcting codes), compressing
the strings to improve efficiency, and transforming the strings into other
strings to maintain their security (i.e., cryptography)."
Dembski confuses two different information theories here, Shannon and
Chaitin-Kolmogorov. Complexity of strings is the subject of
Chaitin-Kolmogorov. Transmission across noisy channels is the subject of
Shannon. The two theories use different definitions to describe different
aspects of information. They are not the same, but Dembski repeatedly
confuses the two in his writings.
"A character string based on a given alphabet sits in a space of such
character strings. This space constitutes a reference class of
possibilities. In general, then, to communicate message from a reference
class of possibilities means selecting a subset from it, thereby identifying
certain possibilities and ruling out the rest."
This vague statement poorly describes what Shannon's theory is about. The
problems is more for the receiver to decide which message most probably was
sent given the data received.
Dembski's quote of Stalnaker doesn't help: "For instance, to be told that it
will rain tomorrow does indeed communicate information because it excludes
the possibility of not-rain."
Such a message does not exclude the possibility of not-rain, because (a) the
sender may not be reliable, and (b) the message may have been garbled
between sender and receiver (suppose the word "not" got dropped between
"will" and "rain").
"Information always presupposes a range of possibilities, and conveying
information means ruling out some of those possibilities."
This is very wrong. The sender of information, the agent that conveys, has
certain knowledge of what is to be sent. It is the receiver that is not
certain.
"Indeed, the more possibilities that get ruled out, the more information
gets conveyed."
Not quite true. The quantity of information (sensu Shannon) has to do with
the probabilies associated with each message, not just the number of
messages. Dembski does get to this a bit further on, but he ought not to
have preceeded it with this error. (It would be well if he got to the point
a bit faster).
Dembski correctly treats information entropy (sensu Shannon, not
Chaitin-Kolmogorov) until the following paragraph on page 6:
"The standard interpretation of mutual information raises two interesting
points about the interpretation of information generally. For one, it
suggests that information is properly defined as a relation between two
items, one providing the backdrop against which the other provides novel
input. The other is whether information should be interpreted as a reduction
or an addition. The mutual information I(X : Y ) identifies the amount by
which the uncertainty in X is reduced by knowing Y , with the maximal
reduction coming when Y actually equals X. But it makes sense also to
interpret information not reductively but additively, so that what is
measured is the amount by which X extends, or adds to, our knowledge of Y .
In that case, information is minimal when X merely repeats Y but grows as X
diverges from Y . H(X|Y ) fits that bill, and could be interpreted as such
a measure of information (though it is usually just called conditional
entropy)."
Mutual information does not suggest one item providing a backdrop against
which another provides novel input. There is no need for the input to be
novel. In communications, it doesn't matter whether the message to be sent
is novel. It often isn't. The point isn't whether the receiver has seen the
message before, just that it doesn't know what the sender is going to send
right now.
Mutual information as a concept is needed because the message received is
not always the same as the message sent in a system with noise. Without
noise H(y) = H(x). The conditional entropy H(y|x) measures the ambiguity of
the received signal, and is used in calculating maximum channel capacity.
As to Dembski's redefinition of information with respect to a variance,
though it produces numeric values, he hasn't exactly shown that it does
anything useful.
.

User: "John Vreeland"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	11 Aug 2004 01:40:29 AM

"R. Baldwin" <res0k7yx@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message news:<hR_Rc.10039$BO.9831@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408092013.92466da@posting.google.com...

Information as a Measure of Variation
by William Dembski (a creationist)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html
(which has a link to an 18-page PDF)

Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing,
it facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.

The article reflects Dembski's usual muddled version of Information Theory.

For example: "The mathematical theory of information is largely about
quantifying the complexity of such strings, characterizing their statistical
properties when they are sent across a noisy communication channel (noise
being represented as a stochastic process that disrupts the strings in
statistically well-defined ways), preserving the strings despite the
presence of noise (i.e., the theory of error correcting codes), compressing
the strings to improve efficiency, and transforming the strings into other
strings to maintain their security (i.e., cryptography)."

Dembski confuses two different information theories here, Shannon and
Chaitin-Kolmogorov. Complexity of strings is the subject of
Chaitin-Kolmogorov. Transmission across noisy channels is the subject of
Shannon. The two theories use different definitions to describe different
aspects of information. They are not the same, but Dembski repeatedly
confuses the two in his writings.

"A character string based on a given alphabet sits in a space of such
character strings. This space constitutes a reference class of
possibilities. In general, then, to communicate message from a reference
class of possibilities means selecting a subset from it, thereby identifying
certain possibilities and ruling out the rest."

This vague statement poorly describes what Shannon's theory is about. The
problems is more for the receiver to decide which message most probably was
sent given the data received.

Dembski's quote of Stalnaker doesn't help: "For instance, to be told that it
will rain tomorrow does indeed communicate information because it excludes
the possibility of not-rain."

Such a message does not exclude the possibility of not-rain, because (a) the
sender may not be reliable, and (b) the message may have been garbled
between sender and receiver (suppose the word "not" got dropped between
"will" and "rain").

"Information always presupposes a range of possibilities, and conveying
information means ruling out some of those possibilities."

This is very wrong. The sender of information, the agent that conveys, has
certain knowledge of what is to be sent. It is the receiver that is not
certain.

"Indeed, the more possibilities that get ruled out, the more information
gets conveyed."

Not quite true. The quantity of information (sensu Shannon) has to do with
the probabilies associated with each message, not just the number of
messages. Dembski does get to this a bit further on, but he ought not to
have preceeded it with this error. (It would be well if he got to the point
a bit faster).

Dembski correctly treats information entropy (sensu Shannon, not
Chaitin-Kolmogorov) until the following paragraph on page 6:

"The standard interpretation of mutual information raises two interesting
points about the interpretation of information generally. For one, it
suggests that information is properly defined as a relation between two
items, one providing the backdrop against which the other provides novel
input. The other is whether information should be interpreted as a reduction
or an addition. The mutual information I(X : Y ) identifies the amount by
which the uncertainty in X is reduced by knowing Y , with the maximal
reduction coming when Y actually equals X. But it makes sense also to
interpret information not reductively but additively, so that what is
measured is the amount by which X extends, or adds to, our knowledge of Y .
In that case, information is minimal when X merely repeats Y but grows as X
diverges from Y . H(X|Y ) fits that bill, and could be interpreted as such
a measure of information (though it is usually just called conditional
entropy)."

Mutual information does not suggest one item providing a backdrop against
which another provides novel input. There is no need for the input to be
novel. In communications, it doesn't matter whether the message to be sent
is novel. It often isn't. The point isn't whether the receiver has seen the
message before, just that it doesn't know what the sender is going to send
right now.

Mutual information as a concept is needed because the message received is
not always the same as the message sent in a system with noise. Without
noise H(y) = H(x). The conditional entropy H(y|x) measures the ambiguity of
the received signal, and is used in calculating maximum channel capacity.

As to Dembski's redefinition of information with respect to a variance,
though it produces numeric values, he hasn't exactly shown that it does
anything useful.

Any fancy theory Dembsky can come up with can easily be refuted with
simple examples. Fine tuning his numbers to eliminate the obvious
counter-examples will only make it slightly more difficult to prove
him wrong. Eventually it should become obvious that there is no
difference between "intelligent design" and "non-intelligent",
"automatic" or "natural design" except that when coupled with modern
computers intelligent design plays second fiddle to mindless genetic
algorithms.
Still, he hasn't made any claims yet regarding this work of his. An
intelligent man would realize he had hit a brick wall and that these
ideas are not going to take him any place. The flaws were obvious
years ago and have remained unaddressed. Perhaps the attempt to use
Chaitin-Kolmogorov is an acknowledgement of those flaws.
Jack
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	10 Aug 2004 03:25:35 AM

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:21:37 +0000, R. Baldwin wrote:

As to Dembski's redefinition of information with respect to a variance,
though it produces numeric values, he hasn't exactly shown that it does
anything useful.

If it merely muddies the waters, he will find that useful in his next
book.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	10 Aug 2004 12:52:45 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408092013.92466da@posting.google.com...

Information as a Measure of Variation
by William Dembski (a creationist)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html
(which has a link to an 18-page PDF)

Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing,
it facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.

OK...what the heck does this have to do with origins? I see that
it is written by Dembski, and his creationist credentials are well known.
I also see "evolving structures" in the abstract. But nothing seems to
relate
to origins, but rather information theory.
So what is the point?
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	10 Aug 2004 03:16:04 AM

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:52:45 +0000, Geoff wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408092013.92466da@posting.google.com...

Information as a Measure of Variation by William Dembski (a
creationist)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html (which has
a link to an 18-page PDF)

Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing, it
facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.

OK...what the heck does this have to do with origins? I see that it is
written by Dembski, and his creationist credentials are well known. I
also see "evolving structures" in the abstract. But nothing seems to
relate to origins, but rather information theory.

So what is the point?

Notice his last sentence. He's pretending that he's almost ready to start
getting ready to start working on a methodology that will someday yield a
formal proof that something had intelligent intervention at some point in
its evolutionary history.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Kevin Anthoney"
Title: Re: Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation"	10 Aug 2004 04:08:38 PM

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:52:45 +0000, Geoff wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408092013.92466da@posting.google.com...

Information as a Measure of Variation by William Dembski (a
creationist)

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html (which has
a link to an 18-page PDF)

Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing, it
facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.

OK...what the heck does this have to do with origins? I see that it is
written by Dembski, and his creationist credentials are well known. I
also see "evolving structures" in the abstract. But nothing seems to
relate to origins, but rather information theory.

So what is the point?

We'd better start teaching this to schoolkids *right* *away*. Don't want
them getting behind.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	23 Aug 2004 08:40:53 AM

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in "Re: Gould and Racism" on
2004-08-21
in message news:<slrncieo1d.1e6.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 21 Aug 2004 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncicgl8.7s5.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 20 Aug 2004 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?

The ol' argument from incredulity, eh DAvid? Why don't you
tell us what is wrong with current theories of abiogenesis, David?

Pick a favorite theory of yours, and I will see what I can present
about it.

By that I don't mean:

A. Quote-mining researchers
B. Fallacious arguments
C. Long, turgid essays made up of A or B.

As usual, I won't read your self-referential links.

You see, David, I have this suspicion that you actually no
damn little about abiogenesis research. There's nothing wrong
with that. I don't know very damn much myself.

I cannot think of a better way for both of us to learn more about the
subject of spontaneous generation than for you and I to discuss the
topic and do the library research necessary for us to continue the
discussion.

Is there a problem with the term abiogenesis?

Not really. Feel free to continue using "abiogenesis," and I'll
continue using "spontaneous generation."

Are you intentionally trying
to confuse the issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely
different claim?

No.
Haeckel, Wald, Barrow & Tipler, and Dawkins did not [AC]"confuse the
issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely different
claim":
Haeckel, Ernst (1834-1919). 1868. _The History of Creation_,
on 348-9. Cited in Michael Ruse, "The Origin of Life: Philosophical
Perspectives" _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 187: 473-82 (1997).
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then
at this one point of the history of development we must have
recourse to the miracle of a _super-natural creation_. The Creator
must have created a first organism, or a few first organisms, from
which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the
simplest Monera, or primaeval cytods, and given them the capability
of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one
of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of
spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should
have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular
process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds
entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as
unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific
intellect.
Wald, George. Aug 1954. "The Origin of Life" _Scientific American_,
45-53. Three paragraphs followed by a tad more material:
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter
to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that
in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such
a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in
the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French
Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous
experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in spontaneous generation.
We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it
represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very
nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in
spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a
single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third
position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to
regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our
time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern
biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the
spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of
life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the
controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief that living organisms arrive spontaneously under present
conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how
organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions
in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.
....here we are-- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous
generation.
Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. _The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle_ (NY: Oxford University Press), 706pp, on 3:
We have learned that the complex phenomenon we call 'life' is built
upon chemical elements more complex than hydrogen and helium gases.
Most biochemists believe that carbon, on which our own organic
chemistry is founded, is the only possible basis for the
_spontaneous_ generation of life.
Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp, on 143-4:
Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a
theory of the origin of life on Earth? I said that the answer
depends upon whether life has arisen only once, or many times.
Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that
life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some
particular type. Call this number the spontaneous generation
probability or SGP.
For _Lurkers'_ Further Reading
summary of portion of Wald article on spontaneous generation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from
non-life via non-intelligence-directed processes?:
Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990812214926.974808E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

It doesn't matter, of course, it's just that I don't
actually trust you all that much.

Or as Ronald Reagan put it about the now-defunct Evil Empire, "Trust,
but verified."

Ignorance isn't a crime, but when you walk around
declaring soemthing as false or flawed, when you truly do
not understand the concept, then you certainly aren't being
terribly productive.

Surely, if you feel yourself qualified to reject abiogenesis,
you must have a pretty good idea of what the research says.

Surely, if you feel yourself qualified to accept spontaneous
generation, you must have a pretty good idea of what the research
says.

I feel myself unqualified in any regard to make any grand statements.
However, chemists and biologists indicate that self-assembling systems are
possible, and that some, such as protospheres have been generated.

What piece of experimental evidence do you find most impressive on
behalf of the spontaneous generation hypothesis?

So
perhaps you can point out what general laws of physics or principles of
chemistry are violated by early self-replicators (not necessarily "alive" in
the sense as we see it).

If [AC]"self-replicators" appear within the laboratory without being
coaxed into existence by intelligent scientists, then I couldn't
[AC]"point out what general laws of physics or principles of chemistry
are violated by early self-replicators."

I've got a book coming in to my library soon, but as I live in a small
community, it could take a few days.

What book is that? Will you be getting Rana & Ross's book?
Rana, Fazale & Hugh Ross. 2004. _Origins of Life: Biblical and
Evolutionary Models Face Off_ (USA: NavPress), 298pp. The book is
highly-detailed with many references; states Rana on 18, "we don't
want to oversimplify, because those who expect a high level of proof
deserve to get it." Some information about the book appears at
http://www.reasons.org/resources/products/origins_of_life/index.shtml?main

Why don't you start, David?

<snip>

_How_ did the DNA-RNA-protein system originate?
.

User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	23 Aug 2004 02:53:23 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408230552.47df9705@posting.google.com>...

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in "Re: Gould and Racism" on
2004-08-21
in message news:<slrncieo1d.1e6.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 21 Aug 2004 david ford <

> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncicgl8.7s5.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 20 Aug 2004 david ford <

> wrote:

Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?

The ol' argument from incredulity, eh DAvid? Why don't you
tell us what is wrong with current theories of abiogenesis, David?

Pick a favorite theory of yours, and I will see what I can present
about it.

Is there a problem with the term abiogenesis?

Not really. Feel free to continue using "abiogenesis," and I'll
continue using "spontaneous generation."

Are you intentionally trying
to confuse the issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely
different claim?

No.
Haeckel, Wald, Barrow & Tipler, and Dawkins did not [AC]"confuse the
issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely different
claim":

[Refs snipped]
The point is not what you call it, but what you mean by it. Are you
quite clear that abiogenesis (or whatever term you choose to apply) as
hypothesized by modern scientists bears virtually no resemblance to
"spontaneous generation" as imagined in Pasteur's time? I mean, no
one seriously proposes any more that maggots arise spontaneously in
rotting meat, or tadpoles from pond mud.

I've got a book coming in to my library soon, but as I live in a small
community, it could take a few days.

What book is that? Will you be getting Rana & Ross's book?

Rana, Fazale & Hugh Ross. 2004. _Origins of Life: Biblical and
Evolutionary Models Face Off_ (USA: NavPress), 298pp. The book is
highly-detailed with many references; states Rana on 18, "we don't
want to oversimplify, because those who expect a high level of proof
deserve to get it." Some information about the book appears at
http://www.reasons.org/resources/products/origins_of_life/index.shtml?main

....another reason I'm glad I got un-involved with the Navigators.

Why don't you start, David?

<snip>

_How_ did the DNA-RNA-protein system originate?

Is this the part where you commence standing on one foot?
-- Kizhe
.

User: "Eros"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	24 Aug 2004 09:48:18 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408230552.47df9705@posting.google.com>...

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in "Re: Gould and Racism" on
2004-08-21
in message news:<slrncieo1d.1e6.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 21 Aug 2004 david ford <

> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncicgl8.7s5.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 20 Aug 2004 david ford <

> wrote:

Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?

The ol' argument from incredulity, eh DAvid? Why don't you
tell us what is wrong with current theories of abiogenesis, David?

Pick a favorite theory of yours, and I will see what I can present
about it.

Is there a problem with the term abiogenesis?

Not really. Feel free to continue using "abiogenesis," and I'll
continue using "spontaneous generation."

As long as you make it clear that the "spontaneous generation" you are
referring to is not the old falsified hypothesis of spontaneously
generated maggots from rotting meat, but the fact that the critical
components of life (amino acids) are generated by spontaneous chemical
reactions.
You do realise that there are several meanings of spontaneous, don't
you?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneously

Are you intentionally trying
to confuse the issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely
different claim?

No.
Haeckel, Wald, Barrow & Tipler, and Dawkins did not [AC]"confuse the
issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely different
claim":

Haeckel, Ernst (1834-1919). 1868. _The History of Creation_,
on 348-9. Cited in Michael Ruse, "The Origin of Life: Philosophical
Perspectives" _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 187: 473-82 (1997).
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then
at this one point of the history of development we must have
recourse to the miracle of a _super-natural creation_. The Creator
must have created a first organism, or a few first organisms, from
which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the
simplest Monera, or primaeval cytods, and given them the capability
of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one
of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of
spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should
have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular
process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds
entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as
unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific
intellect.

Wald, George. Aug 1954. "The Origin of Life" _Scientific American_,
45-53. Three paragraphs followed by a tad more material:
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter
to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that
in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such
a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in
the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French
Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous
experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in spontaneous generation.

We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it
represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very
nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in
spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a
single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third
position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to
regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our
time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern
biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the
spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of
life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the
controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief that living organisms arrive spontaneously under present
conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how
organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions
in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

....here we are-- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous
generation.

Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. _The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle_ (NY: Oxford University Press), 706pp, on 3:
We have learned that the complex phenomenon we call 'life' is built
upon chemical elements more complex than hydrogen and helium gases.
Most biochemists believe that carbon, on which our own organic
chemistry is founded, is the only possible basis for the
_spontaneous_ generation of life.

Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp, on 143-4:
Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a
theory of the origin of life on Earth? I said that the answer
depends upon whether life has arisen only once, or many times.
Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that
life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some
particular type. Call this number the spontaneous generation
probability or SGP.

Do you understand that Haeckel and Wald were talking about the
falsified early hypothesis of "spontaneous generation" i.e. of
specific life forms over very short time-frames (days), but Barrow and
Dawkins were referring to the "spontaneous generation" of the building
blocks of life over millions of years? It should be obvious that these
are totally different concepts, even to you.

For _Lurkers'_ Further Reading

I wouldn't bother.
[snip a lot of other silly stuff]
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Creation implies a Creator. It is impossible that there is not a
creator."
-- "Dr." Kent Hovind
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	28 Aug 2004 04:39:22 PM

(Eros) wrote in message news:<ab0de77f.0408241900.22baf524@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408230552.47df9705@posting.google.com>...

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in "Re: Gould and Racism" on 2004-08-21 in message news:<slrncieo1d.1e6.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 21 Aug 2004 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncicgl8.7s5.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 20 Aug 2004 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?

The ol' argument from incredulity, eh DAvid? Why don't you
tell us what is wrong with current theories of abiogenesis, David?

Pick a favorite theory of yours, and I will see what I can present
about it.

Is there a problem with the term abiogenesis?

Not really. Feel free to continue using "abiogenesis," and I'll
continue using "spontaneous generation."

As long as you make it clear that the "spontaneous generation" you are
referring to is not the old falsified hypothesis of spontaneously
generated maggots from rotting meat,

When I say "scientists have not heretofore observed spontaneous
generation in the laboratory," it should be clear that I not talking
about the possibility or impossibility of rotting meat giving rise to
maggots.

but the fact that the critical
components of life (amino acids) are generated by spontaneous chemical
reactions.

I think I missed something here. Are you saying that "spontaneous
generation" can refer to "the generation of amino acids by chemical
reactions"?

You do realise that there are several meanings of spontaneous, don't
you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneously

Yes.
Did you know that there are several meanings of "evolution"?

Are you intentionally trying
to confuse the issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely
different claim?

No.
Haeckel, Wald, Barrow & Tipler, and Dawkins did not [AC]"confuse the
issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely different
claim":

Haeckel, Ernst (1834-1919). 1868. _The History of Creation_,
on 348-9. Cited in Michael Ruse, "The Origin of Life: Philosophical
Perspectives" _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 187: 473-82 (1997).
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then
at this one point of the history of development we must have
recourse to the miracle of a _super-natural creation_. The Creator
must have created a first organism, or a few first organisms, from
which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the
simplest Monera, or primaeval cytods, and given them the capability
of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one
of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of
spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should
have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular
process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds
entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as
unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific
intellect.

Wald, George. Aug 1954. "The Origin of Life" _Scientific American_,
45-53. Three paragraphs followed by a tad more material:
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter
to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that
in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such
a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in
the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French
Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous
experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in spontaneous generation.

We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it
represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very
nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in
spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a
single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third
position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to
regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our
time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern
biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the
spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of
life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the
controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief that living organisms arrive spontaneously under present
conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how
organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions
in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

....here we are-- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous
generation.

Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. _The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle_ (NY: Oxford University Press), 706pp, on 3:
We have learned that the complex phenomenon we call 'life' is built
upon chemical elements more complex than hydrogen and helium gases.
Most biochemists believe that carbon, on which our own organic
chemistry is founded, is the only possible basis for the
_spontaneous_ generation of life.

Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp, on 143-4:
Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a
theory of the origin of life on Earth? I said that the answer
depends upon whether life has arisen only once, or many times.
Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that
life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some
particular type. Call this number the spontaneous generation
probability or SGP.

I thought Dawkins and Barrow & Tipler were talking about the
spontaneous generation of life, and not about merely the generation of
[E]"the building blocks of life."
[E]"Barrow and Dawkins were referring to the "spontaneous generation"
of the building blocks of life over millions of years"
What are 4 examples of these [E]"building blocks of life"?
Once generated by [E]"chemical reactions," how long in terms of days
can each of these 4 [E]"building blocks of life" last before they go
out of existence?

For _Lurkers'_ Further Reading

I wouldn't bother.

[snip a lot of other silly stuff]

User: "Bennett Standeven"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	30 Aug 2004 05:53:50 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408281352.5d1d8134@posting.google.com>...

eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message news:<ab0de77f.0408241900.22baf524@posting.google.com>...

[...]

but the fact that the critical
components of life (amino acids) are generated by spontaneous chemical
reactions.

I think I missed something here. Are you saying that "spontaneous
generation" can refer to "the generation of amino acids by chemical
reactions"?

Yes; if something is generated spontaneuously, it is clearly an
example of spontaneous generation, no?
[...]

Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp, on 143-4:
Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a
theory of the origin of life on Earth? I said that the answer
depends upon whether life has arisen only once, or many times.
Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that
life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some
particular type. Call this number the spontaneous generation
probability or SGP.

Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thiamine.

Once generated by [E]"chemical reactions," how long in terms of days
can each of these 4 [E]"building blocks of life" last before they go
out of existence?

Roughly 3 trillion, by my calculations.
.

User: "Howard Hershey"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	31 Aug 2004 01:35:31 PM

Bennett Standeven wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408281352.5d1d8134@posting.google.com>...

eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message news:<ab0de77f.0408241900.22baf524@posting.google.com>...

[...]

but the fact that the critical
components of life (amino acids) are generated by spontaneous chemical
reactions.

I think I missed something here. Are you saying that "spontaneous
generation" can refer to "the generation of amino acids by chemical
reactions"?

Yes; if something is generated spontaneuously, it is clearly an
example of spontaneous generation, no?

Except that the energy of activations needed to generate amino acids by
chemical reactions as opposed to the reverse direction is different
enough that it is not the spontaneous reaction at room temperatures, but
requires the input of more energy. In fact, at room temperature
*neither* direction is spontaneous in the sense of occurring at a
significant rate.
-----delta e1---->
aa substrates amino acids
<----delta e2----
Where delta e2 is the energy of activation of a destructive reaction
(such as hydrolysis) and delta e1 is the direction of the synthetic
(such as dehydration) reaction with e1 being the larger quantity, but
both requiring more energy than is available at that temperature. In
this case, if you start with a mixture of these compounds, both
substrates and amino acids will basically remain unchanged (with a very
slow level of decay, measured in centuries) until sufficient energy is
added to overcome the energy of activation more often than on rare
occasion. Even though destruction is the *spontaneous* direction (the
one having the lower energy of activation), the *rate* of that reaction
can be very, very, very slow, especially dependent upon the
concentration of substrates (if water is a substrate, the dryness of the
sample is particularly important).

[...]

Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thiamine.

Once generated by [E]"chemical reactions," how long in terms of days
can each of these 4 [E]"building blocks of life" last before they go
out of existence?

Roughly 3 trillion, by my calculations.

I.e., once formed, these compounds can have a decay rate which is highly
dependent upon local conditions such as temperature. At mean earth
temperatures, the decay rate of the bases adenosine, cytosine, guanine,
and thiamine is quite slow. The really important local condition is the
presence or absence of water. Absent free water, the decay rate is
extremely slow. The decay of the linkage of these nucleoside bases to
their sugar is faster. Because the bases are generally hydrophobic,
they often find themselves in non-aqueous environments.
.

User: "Howard Hershey"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	31 Aug 2004 01:36:00 PM

Bennett Standeven wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408281352.5d1d8134@posting.google.com>...

eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message news:<ab0de77f.0408241900.22baf524@posting.google.com>...

[...]

but the fact that the critical
components of life (amino acids) are generated by spontaneous chemical
reactions.

I think I missed something here. Are you saying that "spontaneous
generation" can refer to "the generation of amino acids by chemical
reactions"?

Yes; if something is generated spontaneuously, it is clearly an
example of spontaneous generation, no?

[...]

Adenosine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thiamine.

Once generated by [E]"chemical reactions," how long in terms of days
can each of these 4 [E]"building blocks of life" last before they go
out of existence?

Roughly 3 trillion, by my calculations.

User: "Eros"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	29 Aug 2004 11:09:31 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408281352.5d1d8134@posting.google.com>...

eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message news:<ab0de77f.0408241900.22baf524@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408230552.47df9705@posting.google.com>...

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in "Re: Gould and Racism" on 2004-08-21 in message news:<slrncieo1d.1e6.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 21 Aug 2004 david ford <

> wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncicgl8.7s5.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On 20 Aug 2004 david ford <

> wrote:

Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?

The ol' argument from incredulity, eh DAvid? Why don't you
tell us what is wrong with current theories of abiogenesis, David?

Pick a favorite theory of yours, and I will see what I can present
about it.

Is there a problem with the term abiogenesis?

Not really. Feel free to continue using "abiogenesis," and I'll
continue using "spontaneous generation."

As long as you make it clear that the "spontaneous generation" you are
referring to is not the old falsified hypothesis of spontaneously
generated maggots from rotting meat,

No, you haven't made it "clear" at all. In fact, you seem to go out of
your way to obfuscate your real meaning, why is that? Do you have a
hidden agenda, David?

but the fact that the critical
components of life (amino acids) are generated by spontaneous chemical
reactions.

I think I missed something here.

No doubt... but nothing a decent science education wouldn't remedy.

Are you saying that "spontaneous
generation" can refer to "the generation of amino acids by chemical
reactions"?

What on earth gave you that silly idea? I can't imagine how you could
have misconstrued my meaning so badly. You are the one giving false
meaning the the term "spontaneous generation", not me.
I said that the critical components of life (amino acids) are
generated by spontaneous chemical reactions. This is a fact of
chemistry. However, given the historical ramifications of the term, no
rational scientist would refer to this process as "spontaneous
generation". That was my whole point.
The term "spontaneous generation", with respect to the sudden
appearance of fully-formed living things, has historical significance
as a failed hypothesis, nothing more. The idea that life arose over
extremely long periods of geologic time by way of spontaneous chemical
reactions is a totally different concept... and the basis of ongoing
scientific research, all over the world.
Why do you insist on confusing the two?
Creationists have been using the same old arguments regarding the
improbability of a natural origin of life for decades, despite the
mounting scientific evidence against their ridiculous assertions;-
"Arguments by creation `scientists' about the improbability of the
natural origin of life (i.e. without the intervention of a
supernatural Creator) have become extremely strained. There is a
rapidly accumulating experimental evidence to show that when
primordial conditions of Earth are recreated in laboratories, monomers
(e.g. amino acids), polymers (e.g. proteinoids comprised of over 200
amino acids) and even protocells (coacervate spheres and bacteria-like
spheres made of organic molecules) form spontaneously. Some of the
protocells even grow and reproduce. The only step that has not yet
been spontaneously demonstrated is the evolution of DNA, but all basic
units of which this molecule is made have appeared spontaneously."
(Prof. Michael Archer, School of Zoology, University of NSW,
"Confronting Creationism: Defending Darwin", NSW University Press in
association with the Australian Institute of Biology, 1987, p.139).

You do realise that there are several meanings of spontaneous, don't
you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneously

Yes.
Did you know that there are several meanings of "evolution"?

There are several different meanings for the word obfuscation too...
what's your point?

Are you intentionally trying
to confuse the issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely
different claim?

No.
Haeckel, Wald, Barrow & Tipler, and Dawkins did not [AC]"confuse the
issue by bringing in an older term referring to an entirely different
claim":

Haeckel, Ernst (1834-1919). 1868. _The History of Creation_,
on 348-9. Cited in Michael Ruse, "The Origin of Life: Philosophical
Perspectives" _Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 187: 473-82 (1997).
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then
at this one point of the history of development we must have
recourse to the miracle of a _super-natural creation_. The Creator
must have created a first organism, or a few first organisms, from
which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the
simplest Monera, or primaeval cytods, and given them the capability
of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one
of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of
spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should
have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular
process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds
entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as
unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific
intellect.

Wald, George. Aug 1954. "The Origin of Life" _Scientific American_,
45-53. Three paragraphs followed by a tad more material:
This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter
to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that
in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such
a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in
the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French
Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous
experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in spontaneous generation.

We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it
represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very
nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in
spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a
single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third
position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to
regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our
time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern
biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the
spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of
life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the
controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief that living organisms arrive spontaneously under present
conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how
organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions
in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

....here we are-- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous
generation.

Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler. 1986. _The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle_ (NY: Oxford University Press), 706pp, on 3:
We have learned that the complex phenomenon we call 'life' is built
upon chemical elements more complex than hydrogen and helium gases.
Most biochemists believe that carbon, on which our own organic
chemistry is founded, is the only possible basis for the
_spontaneous_ generation of life.

Dawkins, Richard. 1987. _The Blind Watchmaker_ (NY: W.W. Norton &
Company), 332+pp, on 143-4:
Our question was, how much luck are we allowed to assume in a
theory of the origin of life on Earth? I said that the answer
depends upon whether life has arisen only once, or many times.
Begin by giving a name to the probability, however low it is, that
life will originate on any randomly designated planet of some
particular type. Call this number the spontaneous generation
probability or SGP.

I thought Dawkins and Barrow & Tipler were talking about the
spontaneous generation of life, and not about merely the generation of
[E]"the building blocks of life."

If it can be demonstrated that "the building blocks of life" form
easily, through spontaneous chemical reactions, as do proteins and
coacervate protocells, do you think this is good supporting evidence
for a natural origin of life? Since these things have been
demonstrated, what do you think the subsequent scientific hypothesis
might be?

[E]"Barrow and Dawkins were referring to the "spontaneous generation"
of the building blocks of life over millions of years"
What are 4 examples of these [E]"building blocks of life"?
Once generated by [E]"chemical reactions," how long in terms of days
can each of these 4 [E]"building blocks of life" last before they go
out of existence?

For _Lurkers'_ Further Reading

I wouldn't bother.

[snip a lot of really silly stuff]

"As Sidney W. Fox of the University of Miami has shown, dry
mixtures of pure amino acids will polymerize spontaneously in
a few hours at temperatures as low as 130 degrees C. to
produce what Fox calls thermal proteinoids. If polyphosphates
are present, similar results can be obtained by merely warming
the amino acid mixture to 60 degrees for a day or so. Provided
that the amino acids in the mixture are predominantly either
acidic or basic and have side chains that are electrically
charged, Fox's method will build polymers consisting of 200 or
more amino acid units."
"Another kind of microspheroidal aggregate, studied by Sidney
W. Fox of the University of Miami, forms from 'thermal
proteinoid," a polymer produced by heating dry mixtures of
amino acids to moderate temperatures. Under suitable
conditions thermal proteinoid will form microspheres several
micrometers in diameter, which grow slowly and eventually bud.
The microspheres seem to have a two-layer membrane suggestive
of that in bacteria."
"Fox's interest in coacervate-like droplets has developed from
his work with thermal proteinoids. The proteinoids have a
remarkable property: when they are heated in a concentrated
aqueous solution at 130 to 180 degrees C., they aggregate
spontaneously into microspheres one or two micrometers in
diameter. Although no lipids are present, many of the
microspheres develop an outer boundary that resembles the
double lipid layer of a cell membrane. Under the proper
conditions the microspheres will grow at the expense of the
dissolved proteinoid and will bud and fission in a most
bacteriumlike manner."
"Whereas Oparin has constructed artificial systems with
catalysts incorporated, Fox has looked for catalytic activity
inherent in the microspheres themselves. For example, he has
found that microsphere preparations can catalyze the
decomposition of glucose and can function as esterases and
peroxidases. It would be surprising indeed if a polypeptide
chain with positive and negative charges on its side groups
did not exhibit some kind of generalized acid-base catalytic
activity."
"The Oparin and Fox experiments are only analogies to life, but
they are suggestive ones. They demonstrate the extent to which
lifelike behavior is grounded in physical chemistry, and they
illustrate the concept of chemical selection for survival."
(Prof. Richard E. Dickerson, (1978), `Chemical Evolution and
the Origin of Life', "Scientific American", September 1978.)
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: "Mark Isaak"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	28 Aug 2004 07:05:30 PM

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:39:22 +0000 (UTC),

(david
ford) wrote:

Then why do you use a term that means the possibility of rotting meat
giving rise to maggots?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.

User: "Howard Hershey"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	29 Aug 2004 10:22:32 AM

david ford wrote:

[snip]

I thought Dawkins and Barrow & Tipler were talking about the
spontaneous generation of life, and not about merely the generation of
[E]"the building blocks of life."

Would you agree that the generation of "the building blocks of life" is
one of the necessary components of any explanation for how "life" (which
needs to be clearly defined by you) arose?

If you have two chemical reactions, one that produces an intermediate
and a second that removes that intermediate, there will be a significant
standing level of intermediates unless the second reaction is extremely
rapid and is independent of concentration. Take a bucket and punch a
small hole in the bottom and start pouring water in it. As long as the
amount of input is significantly less than the amount of output, there
will be a buildup of water in the bucket until the pressure is high
enough to equalize the amount of input and output.
In the chemical reactions we are talking about, there is an energy of
activation required both to produce the product and an energy of
activation to remove it. The rates of reaction will lead to a
steady-state level of each compound.

For _Lurkers'_ Further Reading

I wouldn't bother.

[snip a lot of other silly stuff]

User: "AC"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	25 Aug 2004 01:46:49 PM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:48:18 +0000 (UTC),
Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:

And this is the root problem. David considers muddying the waters with
rhetorical tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. By using abiogenesis,
it is quite clear what is being referred to. David is deliberately trying
to confuse things by using the term "spontaneous generation" which also
holds to an older, long-debunked notion. In this way he can drag in
irrelevant pre-Pasteur nonsense and equate it with the modern scientific
concept of abiogenesis, and have everyone running around explaining why that
isn't the same as the old idea of spontaneous generation, rather than
discussing abiogenesis.
In short, David Ford uses dishonest tactics, because he considers a
rhetorical win to be the equalivalent of actually demonstrating that
abiogenesis cannot produce life. This is why I would like David to explain
why specific theories of abiogenesis are wrong, rather than just
quote-mining researchers and playing his word games. I don't think David
will. He'll flee the thread long before he ever actually has to explain, in
his own words, and not in the disjointed, out-of-context quotes, what he
feels to be the major issues with abiogenesis. And that, dear friends, is
because David Ford's objections to abiogenesis are nothing more than an
argument from incredulity, propped up by his religious beliefs, old quotes
and deliberate quote-mines.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.

User: "Eros"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	26 Aug 2004 08:57:45 PM

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncipocd.97j.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:48:18 +0000 (UTC),
Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, this dishonest type of tactic seems to be fairly common with
Creationists. They seem to believe that the end justifies the means. A
rhetorical win may work in religious apologetics, but it means nothing
in science... they appear totally incabable of understanding this
simple point.

This is why I would like David to explain
why specific theories of abiogenesis are wrong, rather than just
quote-mining researchers and playing his word games. I don't think David
will. He'll flee the thread long before he ever actually has to explain, in
his own words, and not in the disjointed, out-of-context quotes, what he
feels to be the major issues with abiogenesis. And that, dear friends, is
because David Ford's objections to abiogenesis are nothing more than an
argument from incredulity, propped up by his religious beliefs, old quotes
and deliberate quote-mines.

Yep! Although, not too surprising really. Nothing much changes when it
comes to the nefarious techniques of Creationists.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Creationist movement is lead by a dishonest bunch of operators
and misquotation is the hall mark of their work." -- Dr. Richard
Leakey, world renowned paleoanthropologist, in a letter to L. Aron
Nelson, 05/09/03.
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off	28 Aug 2004 04:23:10 PM

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncipocd.97j.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:

And this is the root problem. David considers muddying the waters with
rhetorical tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. By using abiogenesis,
it is quite clear what is being referred to.

You know what I'm referring to by "spontaneous generation." When did
the term "abiogenesis" first appear?

David is deliberately trying
to confuse things by using the term "spontaneous generation" which also
holds to an older, long-debunked notion.

What are some ways in which the hypothesis of abiogenesis can be
[AC]"debunked"?

In this way he can drag in
irrelevant pre-Pasteur nonsense and equate it with the modern scientific
concept of abiogenesis, and have everyone running around explaining why that
isn't the same as the old idea of spontaneous generation, rather than
discussing abiogenesis.

If I ever do [AC]"drag in irrelevant pre-Pasteur nonsense" let us
know.

In short, David Ford uses dishonest tactics, because he considers a
rhetorical win to be the equalivalent of actually demonstrating that
abiogenesis cannot produce life. This is why I would like David to explain
why specific theories of abiogenesis are wrong,

Are you going to be replying to the opening post's questions directed
to you?:
What piece of experimental evidence do you find most impressive on
behalf of the spontaneous generation hypothesis?
What book is arriving at your local library soon?
Will you be getting Rana & Ross's book?
_How_ did the DNA-RNA-protein system originate?

rather than just
quote-mining researchers and playing his word games. I don't think David
will. He'll flee the thread long before he ever actually has to explain, in
his own words, and not in the disjointed, out-of-context quotes, what he
feels to be the major issues with abiogenesis.

It will be interesting to see how long you stick around and offer
substantive responses to my posts in this thread. Judging by past
experience, it probably won't be long. I'm still hoping, though, that
your participation in this thread won't be characterized by sniping
from the sidelines, but will instead reflect immersion in the
nitty-gritty details of the debate.

And that, dear friends, is
because David Ford's objections t