dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) (07/11/85)
/* Written 5:18 pm Jul 9, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */
/* ---------- "codes,designs,creation,intelligence" ---------- */
Merlyn Leroy, responding to a note I had written on informational thermo-
dynamics, writes:
> There is the Miller experiment, which attempted to recreated the
> young Earth environment, ran an energy source through it (a spark gap), and
> ended up with amino acids, some fairly long, in only two weeks.
There are many problems with Miller's experiments; I'll mention just a
few briefly. First, all he produced was racemates, i.e., a 50% 50% mixture of
laevorotary and dextrorotary amino acids. These molecules are mirror images of
each other (geometrically). However, virtually all life uses only L-forms.
The presence of even a single D-form can be lethal. Second, the destruction
rate of the compounds is far higher than the production rate. When you trap
out the products to get around this problem, you also remove the products from
their energy source, and further progress becomes impossible. It's a catch-22
situation. Third, he generated no code capable of carrying information.
Ignoring for a moment the problem of the D-form amino acids, he has (roughly) a
random-letter generator (using a chemical alphabet). What does he produce? A
sequence of words such as: kjemmp lma wwqnx z pr gmbv ytc d qhiojfs xa u bqop.
This does not carry information. Even if you generate short "words" such as
"a", "i", or even "the" mixed in with the above, it has no information content
since it is a meaningless sequence of characters generated randomly. You will
never be able to generate randomly a meaningful code in the lifetime of the
universe, even one as short as "the theory of evolution".
I want to dwell on this third point a little longer, but from a different
angle. A few weeks back on CNN, there was a little story on SETI, the
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. This is a big telescope at Harvard
(staffed only be evolutionists, of course) which has been scanning the skies
for the last 25 years, hunting for evidence of life on another planet. They do
this by examining the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, looking for "evidence
of design". This has several implications for net.origins.
First, the SETI group must feel that time, chance, and natural processes
are not sufficient to produce a code capable of carrying information. In this
case, the code is electromagnetic. Anyone currently reading this note is
looking at a 26 letter code and no one, I'm sure, thinks it was produced by a
random-letter generator, or a bug, or any other form of time, chance, and
natural processes. When we look at the DNA of *any* life form, it is also a
code (of a 4 chemical alphabet) which is far more advanced than any babble I'm
likely to produce. The media on which the code is carried is unimportant.
Why then do we say DNA was produced by time, chance, and natural processes?
Second, SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which
requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Note that this is not due to any
inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some
pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre-
quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern
itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. Yet not a week goes by on this
net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of
design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when it's
convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When
they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like
all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a
sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then -
well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that
which natural processes can produce.
(A footnote here. Symmetry, such as that formed in a crystal like ice,
provides no help for the evolutionists, despite comments by some on this net.
One of the guys CNN talked to from SETI mentioned they got a symmetric pattern
once - they had discovered a pulsar. It contained no information, however, and
although an important discovery, provided no hope of ever producing life.)
Finally, it is theoretically possible to translate the DNA patterns of
E. coli into an electromagnetic pattern (DNA, of course, being based on a
simple four character alphabet). This is a simple mapping function, e.g.,
these very words have been mapped several times into analog and digital elec-
tronic values from when my fingers typed on 26 keys. All are equivalent, of
course. If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns,
it would be trivial to recognize, and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution,
Carl Sagan, would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer,
which we have not seen directly, but must exist." So when that same Carl
Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of
life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design
ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet)
what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees."
For my part, I'll stick with a Creator and information theory, rather
than with Sagan and wishful thinking.
P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the
net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize
created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on
earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well?????
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */
--
|
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+--
|
"More agonizing, less organizing." |bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (07/11/85)
In article dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes: >A few weeks back on CNN, there was a little story on SETI, the >Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. This is a big telescope at Harvard >(staffed only be evolutionists, of course) which has been scanning the skies >for the last 25 years, hunting for evidence of life on another planet. They do >this by examining the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, looking for "evidence >of design". This has several implications for net.origins. Who are you quoting here, Ray, when you say "evidence of design." I do not recall that term in the program. I do recall the words non-random, with no implication of design. > First, the SETI group must feel that time, chance, and natural processes >are not sufficient to produce a code capable of carrying information. In this >case, the code is electromagnetic. Anyone currently reading this note is >looking at a 26 letter code and no one, I'm sure, thinks it was produced by a >random-letter generator, or a bug, or any other form of time, chance, and >natural processes. No, but then I'm not convinced it was produced by a sentient being, either :-) (Sorry, Ray, you fed me that straight line.) >When we look at the DNA of *any* life form, it is also a >code (of a 4 chemical alphabet) which is far more advanced than any babble I'm >likely to produce. The media on which the code is carried is unimportant. >Why then do we say DNA was produced by time, chance, and natural processes? DNA is quite imperfect, actually. There is unnecessary redundancy and whole sections which perform no obvious function. There are things that don't work at all and a nasty tendancy for having bits and pieces knocked out by chemical action. While you may believe that its structure indicates design, you have to admit that even the most reasonable of human engineers could do a better job of designing. Again, it is the imperfections and just plain dysfunctional characteristics of your so-called "design" which suggest an evolution rather than creation of function. > Second, SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which >requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Note that this is not due to any >inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some >pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre- >quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern >itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. Yet not a week goes by on this >net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of >design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when it's >convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. When >they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like >all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a >sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then - >well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that >which natural processes can produce. Horsesh*t, Ray, and you know it. You even contradict yourself below when you admit that the SETI scientists confess that the only non-random pattern found turned out to be a pulsar. Again, the word "designed" in this context was not in the original program, but is your own creation -- perhaps a fantasy. What the SETI scientists can recognize are patterns, but patterns in themselves do not denote design or intelligence. > (A footnote here. Symmetry, such as that formed in a crystal like ice, >provides no help for the evolutionists, despite comments by some on this net. >One of the guys CNN talked to from SETI mentioned they got a symmetric pattern >once - they had discovered a pulsar. It contained no information, however, and >although an important discovery, provided no hope of ever producing life.) Hey! You guys are the ones maintaining that patterns indicate an active designer. Despite your assertions, neither the SETI scientists nor any evolutionary scientist here has said that. You're arguing our side of the question again (Oh, I forgot, this is the same A. Ray Miller who in his first posting to the net said he was undecided about creation vs. evolution. It was only later that we found out he was an ICR type in student's clothing.) > Finally, it is theoretically possible to translate the DNA patterns of >E. coli into an electromagnetic pattern (DNA, of course, being based on a >simple four character alphabet). This is a simple mapping function, e.g., >these very words have been mapped several times into analog and digital elec- >tronic values from when my fingers typed on 26 keys. All are equivalent, of >course. If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns, >it would be trivial to recognize, and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution, >Carl Sagan, would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer, >which we have not seen directly, but must exist." So when that same Carl >Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of >life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design >ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet) >what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees." Again, this is your straw man about what Carl Sagan would say, not based on anything he has said nor on anything the SETI team has said (or was reported in the television program.) >P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the >net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize >created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on >earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? Sure. No problem. Natural processes won't answer back when we try to broadcast back to them, will they. If we send a craft to visit the source, there won't be anyone home if it is a natural process. The point is that the SETI team at no point said that a patterned transmission was *proof* of intelligence. That statement that they did would seem to be the product of the creationist somewhat lower standard of proof. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/11/85)
In article <1270@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes yet another article full of scientific misinformation: > There are many problems with Miller's experiments; I'll mention just a > few briefly. First, all he produced was racemates, i.e., a 50% 50% mixture of > laevorotary and dextrorotary amino acids. These molecules are mirror images > of each other (geometrically). However, virtually all life uses only L-forms. > The presence of even a single D-form can be lethal. Modern theories of abiogenesis hypothesize that early life forms used amino acids found in their environments, and only later started synthesizing their own amino acids. Possibly first to suppliment naturally synthesized amino acids, then later to supplant them more completely until (like today) essentially all amino acids are produced by living organisms. If the first synthetic pathway for amino acids of this early organism produced only left-hand amino acids, rather than a racemic mixture, this wouldn't be critical because they were only a suppliment. Natural selection then would strongly favor greater and greater usage of left-handed amino acids is it was easier to synthesize them than to find racemic mixes produced by the environment. So, what Miller and Urey's experiments showed was that amino acids could be present for early life to utilize. See the recent Scientific American article on recent theories of inorganic abiogenesis. > Second, the destruction > rate of the compounds is far higher than the production rate. When you trap > out the products to get around this problem, you also remove the products from > their energy source, and further progress becomes impossible. It's a catch-22 > situation. Ray here blithely ignores all the multitudinous synthetic tricks that organic chemists have learned over the past century or so. Not to mention the possibility of diffusion of high energy molecules into the trap, providing energy for further reactions. > Third, he generated no code capable of carrying information. > Ignoring for a moment the problem of the D-form amino acids, he has (roughly) > a random-letter generator (using a chemical alphabet). What does he produce? > A sequence of words such as: lma wwqnx z pr gmbv ytc d qhiojfs xa u bqop. > This does not carry information. Even if you generate short "words" such as > "a", "i", or even "the" mixed in with the above, it has no information content > since it is a meaningless sequence of characters generated randomly. You will > never be able to generate randomly a meaningful code in the lifetime of the > universe, even one as short as "the theory of evolution". Modern theories of abiogenesis do not require organic informational codes until genetic takeover occurs, long after use of organic compounds. Thus, Miller's experiments need not synthesize DNA or proteins. Yet Ray misunderstands his own argument so badly that he proposes an amino acid code which IS capable of carrying information (by his own analogy to the alphabet.) He selects an example of randomly generated letters, but doesn't explain how this is analogous to anything in evolutionary theory. > I want to dwell on this third point a little longer, but from a different > angle. A few weeks back on CNN, there was a little story on SETI, the > Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. This is a big telescope at Harvard > (staffed only be evolutionists, of course) which has been scanning the skies > for the last 25 years, hunting for evidence of life on another planet. They > do this by examining the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, looking for > "evidence of design". This has several implications for net.origins. > First, the SETI group must feel that time, chance, and natural processes > are not sufficient to produce a code capable of carrying information. Why do you say that? Almost any agglomeration of matter or energy is capable of carrying encoded information. Any crystal you look at contains vast numbers of imperfections that could be encoded information. For all we know, one day we may decode it and read "Created by GOD (tm)" :-) The question is whether we can discern a meaning in the patterns we perceive. > In this case, the code is electromagnetic. Codes are in symbols. The carrier (medium) is electromagnetic. > Anyone currently reading this note is > looking at a 26 letter code and no one, I'm sure, thinks it was produced by a > random-letter generator, or a bug, or any other form of time, chance, and > natural processes. When we look at the DNA of *any* life form, it is also a > code (of a 4 chemical alphabet) which is far more advanced than any babble I'm > likely to produce. (Refraining from snide comments...) The code of DNA is actually very simple. The information contained is very complex. > The media on which the code is carried is unimportant. > Why then do we say DNA was produced by time, chance, and natural processes? Because natural selection destroys babble preferentially over meaningful (in terms of encoding advantageous physical attributes) information. > Second, SETI claims they can recognize a designed object, i.e., one which > requires intelligence (the I in SETI). Either they're wrong, or you're misrepresenting them. Most likely, SETI hopes to recognize something as produced by intelligence. > Note that this is not due to any > inherent properties in the object itself. The designed object will be some > pattern of electromagnetic frequency in a sea of random electromagnetic fre- > quencies. It must be, therefore, be due solely to the nature of the pattern > itself, i.e., a code carrying some information. They are looking for a small class of phenomina that due to our limited experience we will ASSUME are designed because we design similarly AND haven't alternative explanations for how they might have come about. For all we know, they may already have received many messages, and not have recognized them as being such. > Yet not a week goes by on this > net that we don't hear evolutionists tell us they can't recognize evidence of > design and intelligence. They tell us this, of course, only when it's > convenient, in other words, when they're talking to creationists. Another blatant misrepresentation. When creationists claim to perceive design in things that could have happened naturally, why should we blithely accept their outrageous claims? For example, if a creationist say a natural arch, he might exclaim "Gawd designed it!" But a gradualist might observe the same arch and say "Look, the central section has been eroded out." > When > they're working on SETI, or looking for arrowheads made out of rocks just like > all the other rocks lying on the ground, or noticing the difference between a > sandcastle on a beach and the patterns waves make on that same beach, then - > well, even a child can recognize that which took creative thought and that > which natural processes can produce. Arrowheads and sandcastles are constructs that we humans design and make. Small wonder that we can recognize our own sometimes. But how are we to recognize something made hy a hypothetical being? > (A footnote here. Symmetry, such as that formed in a crystal like ice, > provides no help for the evolutionists, despite comments by some on this net. > One of the guys CNN talked to from SETI mentioned they got a symmetric pattern > once - they had discovered a pulsar. It contained no information, however, > and although an important discovery, provided no hope of ever producing life.) Information certainly could be placed in crystals, and transmitted by pulsars. Crystals are not entirely regular, nor are pulsar's frequencies entirely stable. Given sufficient technology, information could probably be encoded in each. > Finally, it is theoretically possible to translate the DNA patterns of > E. coli into an electromagnetic pattern (DNA, of course, being based on a > simple four character alphabet). This is a simple mapping function, e.g., > these very words have been mapped several times into analog and digital elec- > tronic values from when my fingers typed on 26 keys. All are equivalent, of > course. If SETI were to pick up such a transmission of E. coli DNA patterns, > it would be trivial to recognize, and no doubt the High Priest of Evolution, > Carl Sagan, would say: "Aha! We have evidence of an intelligent designer, > which we have not seen directly, but must exist." How nice of you to put illogic into the mouth of Carl Sagan. Let's say I transmit the gentic code of E. coli. Does this mean I designed E. coli? No. Does it mean anyone designed E. coli? No. Does it mean that a receiver might infer intelligence on my part? Yes. > So when that same Carl > Sagan sees E. coli here on earth, along with vastly more advanced forms of > life expressing codes we haven't even begun to decipher, must less design > ourselves (simply expressed in a chemical rather than electronic alphabet) > what does he say? "Evolution is a fact - like apples falling off trees." Here, once again, we have the watchmaker argument, disguised as the "code maker" argument. And it still fails, for life and for crystals, because we can envision natural processes that could also be responsible for the results. In this case, evolution. > For my part, I'll stick with a Creator and information theory, rather > than with Sagan and wishful thinking. Your ideas of information theory seem as badly misinformed as creationist ideas of thermodynamics. And your accusation of wishful thinking on the basis of your fictional representation of Carl Sagan is dishonest. > P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the > net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize > created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on > earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? We only know of one type of designer: humans. It is ridiculous to think we could generalize to recognize any evidence of design. I'll give you a simple example: let's say you are given two lumps of clay. One has been formed naturally, and the other has been designed. Could you discern which is which? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/12/85)
> P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the > net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize > created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on > earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? Oh, gosh, I guess he has us here. How could we possibly tell the difference between a signal that is an artifact and one that was natural in origin? I guess we will all have to become creationists now. Seriously, what would you think if you detected a very narrow-band radio signal from outer space that was modulated as follows: 011011101111101111111011111111111011111111111110111111111111111110... (it goes on like this for another page.) Whole books have beew written about this, Ray. Some of them decades ago. Why not visit your local library and do some reading? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/16/85)
In article <617@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) writes: >In article dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes: > > >>P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the >>net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize >>created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on >>earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? > > >Sure. No problem. Natural processes won't answer back when we try to >broadcast back to them, will they. If we send a craft to visit the source, >there won't be anyone home if it is a natural process. The point is that the >SETI team at no point said that a patterned transmission was *proof* of >intelligence. That statement that they did would seem to be the product of >the creationist somewhat lower standard of proof. Actually, I would add something else. A designed object has features which are specifically oriented towards fulfilling some purpose intended by the designer. Thus the critical aspect of design is *intent*. Purposive features in living things are rarely the result of intent on the part of the organism in question, they are usually inherited! Thus, a non-random signal which can be shown to carry information of value to sentient beings in a from not corresponding to any reasonable physical process would be presumtive evidence of design(i.e a raster scan image, or a modulated wave which corrsponds to articulated sounds). Note, even this is *not* *proof* of design, only circumstantial evidence thereof, and would require the validation mentioned by Mr Howes. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (07/18/85)
In 1270@uwmacc, A. Ray Miller says various things which might be construed to support the traditional argument from design. It turns out that it does nothing of the kind, and in fact undermines it (as usual). Of particular interest was the analogy to SETI, and it is here that I have a few comments to add. > P.S. I'll put the shoe on the other foot now: Would some evolutionist on the > net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize > created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on > earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes? Well????? > > A. Ray Miller > Univ Illinois This is a particularly easy "challenge". All you have to do is be minimally aware of what SETI is looking for. They are looking for messages that the sender intends to be found. The patterns that are being looked for are the patterns *we ourselves* would send if we were sending a message to the universe at large. Thus, SETI (as far as I know) makes no claim to being able to unambiguously detect "design", since (as far as I know) this isn't possible in general. In particular, a message that has the highest information content most closely resembles noise. A message that is highly recognizable as a message will have redundancy built in, and minimal "framing assumptions", so that it will be noticable in the largest possble set of contexts. There are two key concepts here. The first is that SETI is looking for patterns that can contain information. As pointed out in the posting, this is not a guarantee of artifical or intensional origins, as the example of the Pulsars with the "LGM" hypothesis warns us. The second is that we are looking for messages of a form that *we might send ourselves*. That is, we can recognize a message that has the form of a message we might send, but will have trouble recognizing a message in a format with which we are unfamiliar. Thus, we are guessing at what formats hypothetical ETIs will use, based on our own experience with messages. The second point has an obvious and strong analogy to the discussions about "argument from design". We can recognize *design* if and only if we could (in principle) do the design ourselves. We can recognize *patterns* even when we could or would not have designed things with these patterns. The argument from design normally confuses these two things, pattern and design. To recognize design, the *method of design* must be known to the finder. Thus, it is easy to recognize design in a sandcastle, since we know how it was built, and can see the evidence of shaping using techniques we know or can imagine. We can see design in a painting, since we recognize the paint, and (an expert) can see the technique reflected in the brush strokes. We can see design in a watch or in an airplane and on and on, because we know how they are made. In order to unambiguously see design in life, we would have to be able to make it ourselves. (I was refering to this point when I asked recently for the "mechanism of creation" of life, rather than just a bald statement that it was indeed created.) Now, saying that patterns don't imply design, I'd have to say that patterns don't imply a natural explaination either. However, when an explaination of perceived patterns is available, and competing explainations explain the pattern less convincingly, *then* the patterns can be construed as "evidence" for the most convincing explaination. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw