tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10127981887645050582024-03-13T23:06:27.885-07:00ID ThoughtsBiology, Complexity, Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, Evolution, CyberneticsEvgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-33016095493989035892019-02-17T13:16:00.005-08:002019-02-17T13:16:33.915-08:00My Russian biosemiotics blog<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://biosemiotics.livejournal.com/">biosemiotics.livejournal.com</a></div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-65088210643892090282019-02-17T12:30:00.000-08:002019-02-17T12:30:18.492-08:00My guest post on the Second Law in the context of the origin of life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://uncommondescent.com/informatics/ud-guest-post-dr-eugen-s-on-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-plus-vs-evolution/" target="_blank">My guest post on UncommonDescent.com on thermodynamics and the origin of life</a>.</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-13296368372823215392019-02-17T12:20:00.002-08:002019-02-17T12:20:46.526-08:00My short review of another naturalistic origin of life hypothesis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
UncommonDescent.com kindly published my <a href="https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/prebiotic-metabolic-pathways-another-naturalistic-hypothesis-of-the-origin-of-life/" target="_blank">review of the prebiotic metabolic pathways, another naturalistic origin of life hypothesis</a>.</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-85920299734611802672019-02-17T12:17:00.001-08:002019-02-17T12:17:36.596-08:00My review of Koza's article on modeling the spontaneous emergence of life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
UncommonDescent.com kindly published my review <a href="https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/selensky-shallit-koza-vs-artificial-life-simulations/" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-65583844446543331152016-11-08T16:35:00.002-08:002016-11-08T16:35:49.606-08:00Biological Memory vs. Memory of Materials<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
My recent <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-guest-post-dr-eugen-s-on-biological-memory-vs-memory-of-materials/" target="_blank">post</a> on <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/" target="_blank">www.uncommondescent.</a></div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-39912510928830654792016-04-14T02:13:00.001-07:002016-04-14T02:15:24.105-07:00Professor of Biochemistry James Tour (Rice University) on the current understanding of the origin of life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_zQXgJ-dXM4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_zQXgJ-dXM4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Professor James Tour (Rice University)</b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_SoWtt_I7ms/Vw9ePEl3fHI/AAAAAAAAfzk/qfgNGddePsU4mnSG6Hcmkk1uXcsrLj7MACLcB/s1600/James_Tour_Lecture_Agenda.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_SoWtt_I7ms/Vw9ePEl3fHI/AAAAAAAAfzk/qfgNGddePsU4mnSG6Hcmkk1uXcsrLj7MACLcB/s320/James_Tour_Lecture_Agenda.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The first slide</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The first slide of the presentation is worth having a look at. Professor Tour acknowledges the awkward truth that the strongest evidence against the current understanding of abiogenesis is the very data the research purports to explain.</div>
<br /></div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-35254061486759557032015-04-01T05:11:00.003-07:002015-04-01T05:11:40.934-07:00A counter-junk-DNA summary<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A list of bullet-points with very high-level argumentation against the junk DNA can be found <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-defender-pz-myers-remains-unhappy-with-the-encode-findings/#comment-556858" target="_blank">in comment 30 by JoeCoder here</a>.<br />
<br />
There is also a very good book on it by Jonathan Wells entitled "The Myth of Junk DNA". This book is highly recommendable to laymen in biology like myself who have a scientific background though. </div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-67485105686792204202015-03-30T06:17:00.000-07:002015-03-31T03:22:18.686-07:00The teaching of St Maximus and design detection<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kzvLXOhiAiA/VRlDR-mmf5I/AAAAAAAARZQ/XJmfp3oVYDM/s1600/St.Maximus.The.Confessor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kzvLXOhiAiA/VRlDR-mmf5I/AAAAAAAARZQ/XJmfp3oVYDM/s1600/St.Maximus.The.Confessor.jpg" height="296" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>St Maximus the Confessor († AD 662)</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
The teaching of St Maximus the Confessor about the divine logoi of creation (for a summary in Russian, see <a href="http://azbyka.ru/hristianstvo/dogmaty/castalsky_dogmaticheskoe_bogoslovie_304-all.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>) can serve as a philosophical foundation for Intelligent Design. In short, according to St Maximus, each created thing, alive or not, has the corresponding divine idea (logos) of its existence. Each divine idea is then realized in a certain way called a tropos (plural — <i>tropoi</i>) of the respective created thing. The tropos of a thing is the mode of its existence. For example, the Fall of Man resulted in the change of the tropos of the existence of humans.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The ideas (logoi) of all existing things, before all ages founded by God as He knows Himself, — those that divine men refer to by the goodwill (of God) — though unseen (by us), can still be contemplated or "thought of" by way of reasoning about visible things. For all things created by God, when they are with enough skill contemplated according to their nature, mysteriously reveal to us the ideas by which they received their being, and manifest God's intent. </i><b>St Maximus the Confessor. Answers to Thallasius. Answer 13 (<i>translation from Russian mine. Apologies in advance for any inaccuracies as I could not find any other translation into English on the web </i></b><b><i>— E.S.</i></b><b>)</b></blockquote>
<i><br /></i>The problem of design detection can be formulated as follows (for a more formal statement, see <a href="http://orthodoxchristian-blogger.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/a-set-theoretic-interpretation-of-id.html" target="_blank">here</a>).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Given only a configuration of matter, is it possible with enough level of assurance to correctly infer to its design? Given a configuration, is it possible to find out if intelligence played a decisive role in its generation apart from 'natural' i.e. unintelligent causes? In particular, how well is the retrospective deduction methodology of applied disciplines like forensic science or archaeology suited to the scientific inquiry into the origin of life? </blockquote>
<br />
In solving theoretical and practical problems of design detection, chance and law-like necessity are usually referred to as natural causation as opposed to<i> intelligent </i>choice-type causation. Even though natural factors of causation are the tropoi (i.e. the modes of existence/the ways of realization) of the divine ideas and they themselves have intelligent origin, it is not possible to infer scientifically to their design because they are a given in science. The problem of the meaning and goal of all creation, which is central in St Maximus' teaching, goes beyond the realm of science because science deals only with the syntax of nature, i.e. with external relations of phenomena.</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-70757973170669654242015-03-30T02:50:00.002-07:002015-03-30T02:50:18.658-07:00"Primordial Prescription": a new book by David Abel<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The book "Primordial Prescription: The most plaguing problem of Life Origin science" is free to access and download from <a href="https://www.academia.edu/11382612/Primordial_Prescription_The_Most_Plaguing_Problem_of_Life_Origin_Science" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Subject matter: life origin, cybernetics and biosemiotics. Highly recommendable.</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-78297071966816559012015-02-12T03:45:00.003-08:002015-02-26T11:31:20.858-08:00The future of biology: the emphasis on semiotics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Here is a very interesting <a href="https://www.academia.edu/727564/Towards_a_Semiotic_Biology_Life_is_the_Action_of_Signs" target="_blank">book</a> devoted to viewing living organisms as semiotic state systems.<br />
<div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>References</b></div>
<div>
<ol>
<li><b>Claus Emmeche, Kalevi Kull (2011)</b>: <i><a href="https://www.academia.edu/727564/Towards_a_Semiotic_Biology_Life_is_the_Action_of_Signs" target="_blank">Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life is the Action of Signs</a>, </i>Imperial College Press, London.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-57164982484765594352015-01-06T02:58:00.000-08:002015-03-05T07:10:25.015-08:00Semiotics is central to understanding life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The problem of sign and sign systems (semiotic systems, symbol systems) is key to understanding what is life from a scientific point of view.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
What is the problem of sign? It is the problem of realization of the logical relation between the sign and the denoted. It arises in any material system which controls its state. It arises whenever measurements of state are performed. This is because the process of measurement is part of control. The laws of motion are different from physical states in that the former is a representation of the motion of matter from state to state.<br />
<br />
The process of measurement as part of control relies on a symbolic representation of states that is stored in the memory of a measuring device. The controller then reads the symbolic representation mapping it back to states of the controlled system. The process of measurement cannot be described by the laws of motion, <a href="http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/pattee/pattee.html" target="_blank">according to John von Neumann and Howard Pattee</a>. Measurement is not reducible to the laws of motion.<br />
<br />
Examples of sign systems are: natural languages, traffic code, the codon table (aka the genetic code). In the genetic code, signs are DNA nucleotides, the denoted is the amino acids of proteins synthesized, while the conceptual context is the functional proteome of the offspring organism.<br />
<br />
The problem of sign cannot be resolved at the level of the physical implementation of sign systems, i.e. it is not solvable in terms of physics or chemistry alone. Likewise, the problem of message interchange is irreducible to the organization of a message marshalling medium. Indeed, semantically the same message can be relayed in various technical ways: as ASCII code over a computer network, with paper and ink, by gestures, words, as the Morse code over the telegraph wire, etc. Nonetheless, the meaning of the message still remains the same. <b>Consequently, the problem of information interchange is not reducible to physics.</b><br />
<br />
If the problem of sign is to be adequately solved, it must be done with tools of a different level than physical or chemical interactions of matter. A proper toolkit should make use of utility, semantics, pragmatics, concept, context and such like categories. Notably, these notions are part of system analysis and semiotics, not physics or chemistry and they belong to a different level of abstraction altogether. </div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-23692804952573968102014-12-31T11:34:00.006-08:002015-06-26T03:30:51.432-07:00A set theoretic interpretation of design detection<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A <b>configuration</b> of elements in a given system is its spatial-functional structure, i.e. an arrangement of its elements one relative to another that also reflects connections between the elements. E.g. molecules of water can take different configurations depending on the ambient conditions; in particular, at temperatures below 0 <sup>o</sup>C molecules are arranged in crystal lattice. Below I do not consider variability of configurations over time and I assume they are static.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Configurations of elements can be produced by the system itself as well as by intelligent or non-intelligent factors in its environment. In cases where factors of intelligent nature are involved directly or indirectly, configurations are said to be artificial. A <b>design</b> is any configuration of artificial origin. E.g. ripples on the water surface are not a design if they are naturally caused by the wind. However, they are a design if masses of air causing the ripples to appear are themselves artificially generated. This said, it does not appear interesting to distinguish non-intended designs from non-designs. Therefore in the balance of this note I am narrowing down the definition of designs to denote any configuration of artificial <b>purposeful</b> origin. <br />
<br />
Factors of intelligent nature are viewed as a separate category in order to develop understanding of <b>whether it is possible and if so, under what circumstances, to classify a given configuration as a design.</b><br />
<br />
What is presented below is the argument of design detection in general form using a set theoretic notation.<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
1. Given is a system S. There is a set X = {x<sub>1</sub>, ..., x<sub>N</sub>} of designs in S. In other words, <b>artificial origins of the elements of X is a given established fact</b>. Denote this as D(X). Here D(Θ) is a Boolean function over a set of configurations Θ that evaluates to 1 for designs and to 0 otherwise.<br />
<br />
Denote U the set of all possible configurations in S: X ⊂ U. Conventionally, we use big letters to denote sets and the respective small letters to denote their elements.<br />
<br />
Define X to contain only those designs that are characterized by a set of common properties P:<br />
<br />
∀i ∈ {1,..,N} ∃ P = {p<sub>1</sub>,..,p<sub>K</sub>}: ∀j ∈ {1,..,K} <b>p<sub>j</sub>(x<sub>i</sub>)</b>,<br />
<br />
or simply P(X).<br />
<br />
One of such distinguishing properties could be that every element of X is a <a href="https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0" target="_blank">symbol system</a> [1-3].<br />
<br />
2. There is another set of configurations Y = {y<sub>1</sub>,..., y<sub>M</sub>} ⊂ U such that Y ∩ X = ∅ and (X ∪ Y) ⊂ U.<br />
<br />
It is not known if Y contains designs. Nonetheless, assume that from observations we know that every element of Y is characterized by the properties in P:<br />
<br />
∀i ∈ {1,..,M} ∀j ∈ {1,..,K} <b>p<sub>j</sub>(y<sub>i</sub>)</b>,<br />
<br />
or simply P(Y). Since P(X), we now have P(X ∪ Y).<br />
<br />
3. The properties P, apart from the elements of X or Y, <i>have never been</i> observed elsewhere so far. That they <i>cannot</i> be observed other than in X or Y is a null hypothesis:<br />
<br />
¬P(U \ (X ∪ Y)).<br />
<br />
4. Now, from 1-3 we <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning" target="_blank">abductively</a> infer that every element of Y is a design:<br />
<br />
P(X ∪ Y) ∧ D(X) ∧ ¬P(U \ (X ∪ Y)) → D(Y).<br />
<br />
This <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning" target="_blank">abductive inference</a> stands until natural phenomena are observed that are guaranteed to give rise <b>without recourse to intelligent causation (in particular to the interference of an experimenter)</b> to configurations of matter that have at least one property from P. Here for simplicity we assume that it would be enough to establish such natural phenomena considering them unintelligent and not dealing with their own origins.<br />
<br />
So it is possible to refute implication 4 by means of refuting null hypothesis 3. The refutation of null hypothesis 3, if it exists, can be represented as:<br />
<br />
∃ Z ⊂ (U \ (X ∪ Y)): ∀i ∈ {1,..,L} ∃ j ∈ {1, .., K}: <b>p<sub>j</sub>(z<sub>i</sub>) ∧ ¬D(z<sub>i</sub>)</b>.<br />
<br />
Implication 4 about the artificial origins of the elements of Y is equivalent to the following statement: P(X ∪ Y) ↔ D(X ∪ Y).<br />
<br />
As an example, X can represent artificial information processing systems and Y — the set of all biosystems. As noted above, a property p that the former share with the latter is that they are semiotic systems i.e. they function based on a realization of the sign-denoted relation. This relation is present wherever one element of a system <i>represents</i> another.
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>References</b><br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>David L. Abel, The First Gene, 2011.</li>
<li>Болотова Л.С., <a href="http://my-shop.ru/shop/books/1220894.html" target="_blank">"Системы искусственного интеллекта"</a>, М., Финансы и статистика, 2011 (in Russian).</li>
<li>свящ. Евгений Селенский, <a href="http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/74476.htm" target="_blank">"Живые организмы как системы принятия решений"</a>, Православие.Ру (in Russian).</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-4914247885870721062014-12-10T02:20:00.001-08:002014-12-28T08:45:41.576-08:00Software design patterns and design pattern recognition<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As far as I am aware, design pattern recognition (aka Intelligent Design) has two large veins of thought. One deals with pattern recognition and inferring design as abductively the best available explanation given specific patterns. The other reasons based on the <i>order vs. organization</i> dichotomy.<br />
<div>
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
<br />
It may not be new to the readers, but it just occurred to me that in IT and software development in particular not only do we routinely rely on the ID principles but we even have the standard term 'design patterns' which refers to specific practices of structuring your code to help achieve clarity, efficiency and succinctness. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I believe that reasoning based on patterns alone is abductive by nature and is therefore necessarily weak. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity" target="_blank">Kolmogorov complexity</a> considerations can equally well apply to random/chaotic structures. This is pointed out by strong opponents of ID all the time (and rightly so!). The only way to argue against the criticism is to distinguish between <i>functional</i> and <i>random</i>. To this end, you need to bring in considerations of semantic and pragmatic nature of a given structure in the context of a given system. And this is why I think that the <i>order vs. organization</i> dichotomy is crucial. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Probabilistic design patterns argument notwithstanding, it is ID reasoning based on the profound dissimilarity between order and organization that constitutes design argument <i>par excellence</i>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>Order</i> is represented by low-informational, redundant, highly compressible, simple structures (configurations of matter) and is the opposite of <i>chaos</i>. Chaos is characterized by the absence of order, i.e. by highly complex random incompressible structures. What is important, is random structures just like ordered structures also have a very low functional information retention capacity. Chaotic complexity is nothing like functional complexity and should not be confused with it. In contrast, <i>organization</i> refers to rich functional information content, information processing, irreducible complexity of the whole composed of multiple parts, algorithmic function and specific structures supporting it.<br />
<br />
Code is an epitome of organization. Code defines decisions to be made by the code execution system (e.g. personal computer operating system, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_biosynthesis" target="_blank">protein biosynthesis</a> system or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system" target="_blank">the nervous system</a>). Decisions signify physical discontinuity (or contingency, i.e. freedom from the necessity of the laws of nature): every alternative decision at a decision node is physically equally likely. There is <i>no necessary physical causal relationship</i> between the decision made and the physical conditions before it is made. There is no 'if-then-else' in the realm of physics.<br />
<br />
Organization is all about 'if-then-else'. Organization is possible where there is freedom of volitional choice from among multiple physically inert states. Multiplicity and physical inertness enable the assignment of meaning to arbitrarily chosen configurations of matter and consequently to their corresponding physically inert states. As a result, chosen configurations are loaded with semantic cargo in the context of a functional system. Consider, e.g. a programmable lock where the key combination of digits is unconstrained by the laws of physics in the sense that any other sequence of digits could have been chosen to program the function of the lock instead. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As another example, consider the rules of chess. No physical laws of motion are able to account for their <i>existence and stability</i>. This particular chessman's move is inexplicable in terms of physics alone (in particular, the laws of motion). The laws of motion only describe the move as motion of a solid (or elastic — depending on the assumptions) body acted upon by various external forces (gravity, reaction and friction). The laws of mechanics are incapable of explaining why a pawn moves from e2 to e4. They are incapable of dealing with the categories of utility, strategy, pragmatic success, which is what chess is all about. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rules/programs are irreducible to physical material constraints such as gravity, viscosity, friction, electromagnetism, reaction from mechanical support, gyroscopic forces etc. because rules/programs are abstract and require a different level of reasoning altogether. The laws of nature that describe constraints (not rules) and transitions between physical states of a system are still valid, of course, but reasoning about physicality alone misses out on things that are key to organization (and consequently to biological life). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Rules can be detected objectively. They are present in complex artifacts like chess. They are also present in biological systems! The most famous example is the rules for the interpretation of genetic instructions as part of protein synthesis (aka <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_codon_table" target="_blank">the DNA codon table</a>). No matter how a codon is interpreted, the cell as a whole is in a dynamic equilibrium. But that is not it! What's more, rules/programs are ubiquitous in living systems. Function on all levels of biological organization is based on rules and programs: from molecular to tissular to organic to organismal. Biological organization, as any other organization, <i>is irreducible to physics and chemistry</i> alone.<br />
<br />
<b>See also:</b><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>David Abel, The First Gene, 2011.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/difference-between-organization-and-order/" target="_blank">The difference between organization and order</a>, an original post at <a href="http://uncommondescent.com/">uncommondescent.com</a>.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-28338055386751876542014-12-01T08:23:00.001-08:002014-12-01T08:26:42.981-08:00A post on UD: order vs. organization<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I recommend reading an excellent <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/difference-between-organization-and-order/" target="_blank">original post</a> published at <a href="http://uncommondescent.com/">uncommondescent.com</a> on 27 November 2014. The post discusses the differences between order and origanization. What is also worth reading is the insightful comments by the author (niwrad) and Upright Biped.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I believe that it is right here at the order/organization dichotomy lies the gist of the <i>Intelligent Design argument</i>. Arguments based on pattern recognition or statistical abductive design inference are a lot weaker and sometimes even appear naive though most probably valid. For this reason they cannot be considered the solid foundation of the ID argument. It is not possible to say that ID totally depends on these.<br />
<br />
Living systems are characterized by semiosis, prescriptive information, code, hierarchical control, i.e. <i>organization</i> (irreducibility of a whole to its parts). Organization must not be confused with order. Order, or antichaos in Stuart Kauffman's terms, cannot serve an exhaustive description of what constitutes the phenomenon of biological life. Function, organization are an altogether different category. This is why conflating order/chaos with organization is a gross category error.<br />
<br />
Of special interest in the comments to the note are references to the works of Professor Howard Pattee on biosemiosis (such as <a href="http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/pattee/pattee.html" target="_blank">this one</a>), as well as <a href="http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/brady_24.htm" target="_blank">the work of Stephen Talbott</a> on the causal role of form in biology.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References</b><br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Pattee, H.H.. [2001], <i>The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut</i>. Biosystems. Vol. 60, pp. 5-21 (full text available <a href="http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/pattee/pattee.html" target="_blank">here</a>).</li>
<li>Stephen L. Talbott. [2014], <i>How Does an Organism Get its Shape: the Causal Role of Biological Form</i>. (full text available <a href="http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/brady_24.htm" target="_blank">here</a>). </li>
</ol>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-5604184159149610832014-10-27T11:40:00.000-07:002014-10-29T03:50:01.616-07:00On the source of biological information<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YDY-noW3Gjs/VE1FTT8EygI/AAAAAAAAMJ0/8UhhfZ1eWtg/s1600/%D1%8D%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YDY-noW3Gjs/VE1FTT8EygI/AAAAAAAAMJ0/8UhhfZ1eWtg/s1600/%D1%8D%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BE%D1%82.png" height="203" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Эукариотическая клетка. Источник: <a href="http://dic.academic.ru/">dic.academic.ru</a></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Selection can only reduce the amount of genetic information as it only passively filters out unfit organisms. Where then does genetic information come from?! How can randomness be responsible for the generation of statistically significant amounts of biological information?! Where is the genuine source of it?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The only adequate answer to this question is, <b>intelligence </b>extraneous to the system {the organism + the environment}.<br />
<br />
The evolutionist claim that selection coupled with stochastic factors such as mutations and genetic drift is the source of statistically significant amounts of genetic information does not have any empirical support whatsoever. If the claim really held, more than enough empirical support for it would be readily available, considering the large amounts of genetic information observed in the biota. However, as we all know, this is not the case. The enthusiasm of the pioneers of abiogenesis has given way to pessimism and the tacit realization of the fact that between inanimate nature and living matter lies a chasm of <i>functional complexity</i>.</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-87640778805790052322014-10-07T02:09:00.001-07:002014-10-07T03:03:13.971-07:00A brain has its own inner GPS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
For the discovery of the function of special brain cells that constitute an analog of the Global Positioning System, European scientists have been awarded a Nobel prize in medicine this year. <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2014/press.html">The winners are John O'Keefe (University College London), May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser (The centre of memory biology, Norway)</a>.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Every day we discover more about the tremendous functional organization and complexity of life. As it is progressively easier to interpret the growing body of empirical evidence in light of an intelligent origin of life, it is respectively harder to explain it in the evolutionary terms of a fancy interplay of chance and the laws of nature that are blind to purpose or function.<br />
<br />
Do you still believe in evolution?</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-35783876398147844242014-09-19T12:49:00.001-07:002014-09-19T13:06:06.702-07:00Self-assembling robots: yet another counter-argument against ID is debunked<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/self-folding_ro089501.html" target="_blank">an interesting note</a> about another refuted counter-argument against intelligent origins of life. This flawed argument states that biological life cannot be likened to human artifacts because humans cannot create autonomous self-replicating, self-deploying systems. In this video quoted in the note this argument is dismissed by demonstrating a self-folding autonomous walking robot. According to the inventors, the self-assembly is inspired by biological systems and origami.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<lj-embed id="15">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-link="http://youtube.com/watch?v=9M1zNIVGrjM" frameborder="0" height="300" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9M1zNIVGrjM?wmode=opaque" width="370"></iframe>
</lj-embed>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The only thing I would add is that this argument was actually debunked as soon as the first computer virus was written in 1981 to attack Apple machines. Viruses are persistent and self-replicating malicious computer code.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So if artificial systems, that are organizationally a lot simpler than protein life and are known to have intelligent origin, can replicate and deploy themselves, then the considerably higher complexity of protein life testifies all the more to a high likelihood of its own origin being intelligent.
</div>
</div>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-80988995816464132132014-08-06T02:28:00.003-07:002014-08-08T06:09:26.995-07:00Biomimicry: Artificial Photosynthesis - Mission Accomplished<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Ia0nhV6UD4/U-H027GNqII/AAAAAAAAIG4/s8-pmDQYcOA/s1600/8062_900.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7Ia0nhV6UD4/U-H027GNqII/AAAAAAAAIG4/s8-pmDQYcOA/s1600/8062_900.png" height="231" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Fig.1. Artificial leaves</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Another proof of concept for Intelligent Design, artificial photosynthesis has now been achieved as part of the Silk Leaf project by a Royal College of Art graduate Julian Melchiorri. </span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">They say, it is another step towards possible space colonization. Details <a href="https://www.adafruit.com/blog/2014/08/05/artificial-leaf-could-make-oxygen-in-space-with-water-and-light-biomimicry/">here</a>.</span></div>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-76024219846457071622014-08-04T07:42:00.001-07:002014-08-18T03:30:21.739-07:00Decision making in biosystems<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">What is decision making and why do they say sometimes that biosystems make decisions? </span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;"><b></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Decision making is, by definition, a choice from alternatives as part of planning. A choice is made by an <i>agent</i>, <i>expert</i> or <i>decision maker</i>. Choices are made <i>for a purpose</i> <i>given some conditions</i>. Imagine yourself in a shop with a list of goods to buy. The list is long but your finances are limited. You start making decisions: this one I will buy, that one I won't. In the shopping list example, the purpose could be to keep your better half happy by saving money the most while at the same time maximizing the nutrition value of your cart. So a purpose, or <i>a goal</i>, may be formulated as <i>optimization</i> with respect to one or more <i>criteria</i>. In the latter case, the final choice of an acceptable solution is made out of the so-called <i>Pareto set</i> of solutions where no solution is better than the other in all respects. The final choice of a single optimal solution in this case is down to the agent.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5b6LWDsp_00/U-DcZrShxTI/AAAAAAAAIGM/8HQOxzvydbE/s1600/880217_ya-ne-slishkom-bogat-chtobyi-pokupat-deshevyie-veschi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5b6LWDsp_00/U-DcZrShxTI/AAAAAAAAIGM/8HQOxzvydbE/s1600/880217_ya-ne-slishkom-bogat-chtobyi-pokupat-deshevyie-veschi.jpg" height="320" width="310" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Fig.1. Optimization criteria (The poster featuring the oligarch Abramovich reads: "I am not rich enough to buy cheap stuff"). Here the criterion is reliability and, in the long run implicitly, financial savings.</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">
As we can see, decision making is the prerogative of experts. However, it can be delegated to the 'automatics' or a program. Examples are many: programmed tools on the factory floor, Windows XP and other operating systems, protein synthesis, nanotechnologies (molecular logic gates, processors on crystals). But even if the system under investigation makes decisions automatically, informally speaking, the agent <i>must have pre-programmed</i> these decisions <i>using forethought</i>. More formally speaking, the expert determines the heuristic process of finding solutions (e.g. by writing code). By doing so, he effectively directs the future search towards those areas of solution space where, as he thinks from previous experience, the density of solutions is higher than average. The expert (explicitly or implicitly) transmits to the controlled system the so called <i>active information</i> [1] about the desired characteristics of the search and/or of the solutions.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Experts are necessary for code to appear. There are <i>no other known ways</i> of generating code as <i>meaningful computationally halting sets of instructions</i>. Why is it so? Based on the given pragmatic criteria (such as saving money or raising nutrition value) a program can <i>choose </i>between states of the system that are physically (or chemically) <i>indeterminate equilibrium states</i>. For this reason <i>a choice between such states cannot be made by the environment without recourse to an agent</i>. Therefore a program (and a programmer) is indispensable.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />It is easy to see that decision making is not necessarily conscious as far as the system under investigation is concerned. This is true wherever the action of decision making has been pre-programmed in some way (explicitly or implicitly). Under specific conditions, we can legitimately say that it is highly probable that such systems must have been programmed to make decisions by an agent with the capability of forethought. Moreover, sometimes this probability is so close to 1 that in practical terms we can be sure that such a system <i>as a whole</i> is a result of intelligent actions on the part of an agent.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">From the point of view of the theory of computation complexity, for a program to appear there must exist a non-algorithmic oracle, i.e. an agent. This, I think, is a consequence of a fundamental theoretic result, i.e. the intractability of the halting problem for a Turing machine. The Turing machine is a mathematical model of an algorithm. Its halting models the successful completion of the respective algorithm. It is debatable whether a program can randomly mutate and still remain functional, when and within what limits it is possible and what is necessary to ensure in practice that the program remains sound and halts. However, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that <i>the first program that was coding up the behaviour of a living organism must have arisen exclusively intelligently</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Using objective metrics for what is called <i>functional information,</i> ID works out statistical lower bounds for functional information at or beyond which it is possible to assert that the dominant factor in the generation of these quantities of functional information is intelligence of a decision maker, whereas stochastic factors or factors of law-like necessity (i.e. physical/chemical regularities), though present, are much less significant. Note the <i>statistical</i> and <i>abductive</i> nature of this statement. As the amount of functional information in a system increases, the <i>probability</i> of this system being a result of purposive decision making increases. Likewise, the probability of the dominant role of stochastic perturbations and law-like necessity in generating this system decreases. Abduction here is understood in terms of inferring to the best plausible explanation based on massive observations of functional information in various systems. While high statistically significant levels of functional information are systematically observed in man-made or animal-made artefacts (such as human or animal vocal or sign languages, computer languages and other complex information processing systems), only trace levels of functional information can be observed in non-living nature. From a practical point of view, in cases where the amount of observed functional information is beyond a certain level (for different systems these thresholds are different) the influence of stochastic factors or factors of law-like regularity can be safely disregarded as noise.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Now concerning living organisms. Perhaps the most important observation of biology, biochemistry, bioinformatics, mathematics and cybernetics, i.e. the study of control and controlled systems, over the recent decades has been that <i>all terrestrial life is program-based, or cybernetic</i>. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">Living systems control their own state automatically. Biosystems are <i>implemented</i> so that decision making in them is pre-programmed, e.g. in the form of instincts. Instincts are programs of action implemented at various levels: cellular, tissular, at the level of separate organs or systems, and at the top level of the entire organism. One of many examples of automated decision making in organisms is bacterial <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis">chemotaxis</a>. <i>In addition to</i> <i>instinctual reactions</i>, the human higher nervous activity enables conscious decision making.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>References</b></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Winston Ewert, George Montanez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, "<a href="http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/2010-EfficientPerQueryInformationExtraction.pdf">Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle</a>," Proceedings of the the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-8351100556472621292014-07-30T07:01:00.002-07:002014-07-30T07:06:46.478-07:00The most energy efficient memory<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">My translation into English <a href="http://phys.sezn.ru/questions/5/%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B2-%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BA">from here</a>.</span></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">DNA is the most energy efficient memory system known. DNA molecules store genetic information for all terrestrial life without exceptions. DNA is a polymer that has a double-helix with a step of 34 Å and a diameter of 20 Å. The two strands are connected by pairs of special chemicals called bases in intervals of 3.4 Å. The sequence of the base pairs determines the genetic information. Since DNA uses only 4 different types of base, each pair codes up 2 bits of information. This corresponds to an information density of ~10<sup>21</sup> bits/cm<sup>3</sup> (cf. information density of the human brain is just ~10<sup>7</sup> bits/cm<sup>3</sup>). The total volume of information in human DNA is ~10<sup>8</sup> bits. Interestingly, only about 10% of it is genetic information per se. In other words, only a tenth of it is a description of the structure and composition of humans or, more precisely, the «recipe» of the chemical synthesis of the human body. The remaining 90% accounts for the «administrative apparatus» that controls the transmission of genetic information. A comparison of the relatively small volume of human genetic information (~10<sup>7</sup> bits) with the human brain memory capacity (~10<sup>10</sup> bits) leads to the curious conclusion that our experience greatly exceeds our heredity. It is also worth noting that the amount of genetic information in the simplest living thing, a virus, is only a few hundred times less than that in humans. The transmission of 1 bit of information stored in DNA requires about 0.2 eV, which is approximately 10 times greater than the normal temperature T = 300 К. Consequently, energy-wise as an information storage system DNA is close to an ideal one. Most probably, the extra order of magnitude in terms of energy cost ensures reliability of information transmission and is a measure of defence from thermal fluctuations. Therefore DNA ensures a practically possible minimum of energy cost per bit of information, in the presence of thermal noise.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">See also my note <a href="http://orthodoxchristian-blogger.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/how-effective-is-technology-compared-to.html">here</a>.
</span></div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-67948771338584543142014-07-23T03:28:00.001-07:002014-08-05T02:18:59.547-07:00Human proteome more complex than previously thought<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Human proteome is more complex than was previously thought.</span></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">More than 250 splicing variants of a highly conserved human gene family have been identified. Details were published in Science in July this year [1]. See also <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40516/title/Added-Layers-of-Proteome-Complexity/">here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">We are definitely going to see progressively more 'complex-than-previously-thought' discoveries, which is perfectly in line with a general trend in biology predicted by ID. This trend has always been there, but perhaps it is most clearly seen over the past few decades, starting with the discovery of DNA in 1953. Further investigations progressively revealed an immense functional complexity of life. The once prevailing junk DNA evolutionary hypothesis attempting to explain a relatively low percentage of protein coding DNA in all DNA, has been essentially debunked. Contrary to evolutionary expectations, most regions of the DNA molecule are used to regulate the process of gene expression. And now it seems that gene splicing adds an extra level of complexity to the picture.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">References</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">W.S. Lo et al., “Human tRNA synthetase catalytic nulls with diverse functions,” Science, doi:10.1126/science.1252943, 2014.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-21203977821264533252014-07-18T04:56:00.001-07:002014-09-17T07:49:49.834-07:00Evidence of Design In Nature: An Inter-Faith Centre Seminar, Suffolk, UK<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">On Wednesday 16 July I gave a talk at the Inter-faith Centre in Ipswich, Suffolk. The slides are available <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1Bv3vLHxYXfM0xHUFdEaThKSnc/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. Due to the Google presentation viewer still having glitches, it is advisable to download the presentation.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">There were a few noteworthy comments from the audience. The first was quite irrelevant to the subject matter. The computer science perspective, I was told, was not the only one possible (true) and perhaps not as interesting as the psychological or emotional aspect of meeting with God. I agree, that is important but this is beside my point. I have already been accused of 'mechanicism' but it is what seems specifically interesting to me given my professional background. The cybernetics of life vehemently testifying to intelligent agency, to me, deserves attention as a scientific case. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">The second comment was that my God is not the God of Spinoza. Thank you for recognizing that! </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;">Thirdly, somebody said that I had greatly underestimated the (creative?) power of selection. Prove it, show it to me on a concrete unambiguous example how selection creates novelty. Just a single yet demonstrable piece of strong evidence, not just the usual evolutionary story telling. In the 21st century this is not enough. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Fourthly, according to an Anglican-Hindu priest (a very strange combination indeed), Dawkins is a saint. I am not commenting that. </span></div>
</div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-23201046683400427472014-07-17T02:31:00.003-07:002014-08-18T04:16:55.702-07:00Michael Behe's edge of evolution prediction confirmed<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Dr Michael Behe's prediction about the minimum number of <i>simultaneous</i> mutations needed to confer resistance to a drug in malaria parasites, is now confirmed.
</span></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The critics of his book 'The Edge of Evolution' argued that it might be possible for resistance to arise in stages of one mutation each, which was the major contention issue about the book. An independent experimental study shows Dr Behe was right.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Details <a href="http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe087901.html">here</a>. I also recommend looking at a relevant post at <a href="http://uncommondescent.com">UncommonDescent.com</a> and comments underneath it <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mark-this-is-what-all-the-fuss-is-about/">here</a>.
</span></div>
</div>Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-25963361162993576882014-07-11T06:11:00.000-07:002014-07-11T06:11:20.212-07:00Jon Cohen on human and chimp genomes: "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b><a href="http://sites.bio.indiana.edu/~hahnlab/MediaFiles/GeneFamilies/Science_2007.pdf"><span style="font-size: small;">Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%", Science, vol. 326 (29 June 2007), p. 1836.</span></a></b></li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012798188764505058.post-77413437269497030862014-07-10T05:09:00.001-07:002014-07-30T07:06:08.654-07:00How efficient is technology compared to biology?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QfgqXAKZjPI/U752EN45LDI/AAAAAAAAGOs/GWKejbX3a7o/s1600/biotriz.tif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QfgqXAKZjPI/U752EN45LDI/AAAAAAAAGOs/GWKejbX3a7o/s1600/biotriz.tif" height="135" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fig.1. Efficiency of modern technology and biology compared: the portion of resources of various kinds (color-coded) used in an artefact (left) or biosystem (right) is shown for various dimensions ranging from nanometers to kilometers. Courtesy of my colleagues, [1].</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">In discussions about whether life bears any hallmarks of intelligence some people say:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">«I would do it better and therefore the way this organism is structured or operates does not show any trace of wise decision making that would have caused the organism to exist. Consequently, it is a result of pure chance and law-like necessity».</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The major flaw of this argument is in disregarding the multiplicity of optimization criteria which must be satisfied to achieve a goal. A win on one criterion in many such cases means a loss on another if those criteria are in conflict. The simplest example from everyday life is quality and price. In practice, an acceptable compromise is often in between the two extremes: the cheapest and the worst quality, as opposed to the most expensive and the best quality.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Fig. 1 shows a comparison of percent of resource usage in biological solutions (right) and in contemporary technology (left) for various sizes of human artefacts and organisms (from nanometers to kilometers). Resources are information, energy, time, space, structure and substance. E.g. for nanometer scale objects and organisms (the left hand side of both graphs) the modern technology is hugely less efficient than biological solutions in energy (several times as bad) and substance (about twice as bad). The graphs also demonstrate the importance of information processing across biosystems of all sizes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">See also <a href="http://orthodoxchristian-blogger.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-most-energy-efficient-memory.html">my note here</a>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="font-size: small;">References</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><br /></span>
</span></div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Bogatyrev N., Bogatyreva O. (2014)</b>: BioTRIZ: a Win-Win Methodology for Eco-Innovation. - In: "Eco-Innovation
and the development of Business Models. Lessons from Experience and New Frontiers
in Theory and Practice", chapter 15, Vol.2, Springer Verlag, 2014, p.297-314.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics/jerry-coyne-proven-wrong-by-physicists-about-the-eye">Jerry Coyne proven wrong by physicists about the eye</a>, <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/">uncommondescent.com</a>.</span></li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>Evgeny Selenskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13863920287602828921noreply@blogger.com0