Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes


nightlight wrote:
What we see is easily accounted for based on the chemistry
of DNA and the ability of cells to repair DNA.

That depends, to paraphrase one former US president, what the meaning
of "is" is. Also on what you mean by "accounted for". As explained in
the earlier posts:

M1.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/788d751e9ac239da?hl=en&;
M2.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d6349ead1e3ff646?hl=en&;

the "random mutation" half of the neo-Darwinian (ND) theory is a
gratuitous ideological assumption (Darwin himself was more guarded in
his writings).

There's nothing "ideological" about the observation that mutations
occur at random in respect to reproductive fitness. It's an hypothesis
which can be tested using the scientific method.

As for Darwin being "more guarded in his writings", that's because he
didn't know about genetics, and hence could not have made any comment
on mutuation patterns.

While one can certainly generate "random" mutations in
the lab, that doesn't imply that the mutations behind the observed
evolution (micro & macro) are "random" i.e. independent from the
environment in which they arose.

The independence of mutations from their envirionment is an hypothesis
which can be tested using the tools of science. It has been tested, and
there is little in the results to suggest any correlation.

After all, it is _trivially_ true that
mutation does depend on its physical cause (e.g. EM radiation, chemical
reactions, cosmic rays,...). Hence mutations are at least correlated
with the most immediate physical (quantum) state of the DNA

What the hell is the "quantum state" of DNA?
The term is meaningless at the scales of macromolecules.
Stop using scientific terms you don't understand.

and its
immediate environment, which in turn are correlated with the larger (in
space) future and past environments i.e. mutations are trivially
correlated with events and states of the past and the future
environments of the organism.

So now you are suggesting that there is a correlation between mutations
and *future* events?

Would you care to provide some evidence to back up this assertion?


The neo-Darwinian "random mutation conjecture" (RMC) is that the
correlation between (evolutionary) mutations and the DNA environment
stops precisely at the immediate preceding physical causes.

If you mean that the process does not react to events which have not
yet happened, that is the case for all processes in all fields of
science (with the possible exception of quantum physics, but then, as
Richard Feyman said, nobody understands quantum physics).

If the
physics were still the 19th century mechanistic theory, fixing the
physical state of DNA and its "immediate" environment (within the near
past light cone) automatically leads to a unique future state of the
DNA, hence to a unique mutation. Thus you wouldn't have to care about
wider correlations with future and past environments.


More gobbledegook.

But the physics did advance from the 19th century mechanistic theory.
Our present fundamental physics is Quantum Theory (QT). The key
property of QT relevant for this discussion is non-determinism: the
exactly same physical state of the DNA and its environment generally
leads to different outcomes (mutations). The physics can only tell you
the probabilities of various outcomes (mutations), but nothing in the
most precise physical state of the DNA and its environment determines
what the specific outcome will be in any given instance.


So the universe is inherently unpredictable.
What is your point?

Therefore, even if one were to grant to ND that the immediate DNA
environment (resulting in mutation) is independent from the physical
state of any larger context (which might allow for purposeful
mutations), there is always an impenetrable quantum curtain hiding the
selection of particular outcome/mutation even if the state of DNA and
its environment is known with theoretically maximum precision. Unlike
classical physics, where the 'first mover'/external intelligent agency
had to be constrained at the very beginning of the universe (to set up
the deterministic laws of physics and the initial conditions of all
particles and fields), the quantum physics provides an interface for an
external (or even an internal/subquantum system built upon Planckian
scale objects, see [M2]) intelligent agency to direct the universe
continuously and in great deal of detail (within the statistical
constraints of QT, since these are empirically fixed).

In other words, you are asserting from your poor understanding of
quantum physics that God fiddles with the universe via quantum events.

This does not work. The completely random nature of such events is what
allows quantum physics to make extremely acurate predictions about the
behaviour of matter and energy at larger scales.

So tough shit. Your assertion does not hold up to scrutiny.


Of course, one wouldn't grant ND even that the immediate physical
conditions (quantum state) causing mutations are uncorrelated with the
wider past and future contexts.

Do you have any idea of the differences in scale between that at which
quantum events occur and macromolecules such as DNA?

I suggest that you find out.

That would need to be established.
Since at the most basic physical level each mutation _is_ always
correlated with the quantum state of entire universe visible at that
location at the time of the mutation (since physical interactions can
travel at light speed, reach the mutation point and affect DNA
environment), as well as with the state of entire universe within the
future light cone of the mutation, one cannot a priory exclude
correlation of the mutation with higher level patterns in the past and
future much wider environments. One could _in principle_ exclude these
types of correlations (thus a foresight) empirically if one could
control the immediate environment precisely enough (as allowed by the
QT state of the system). Since this is technologically not viable at
present, even without the theoretical QT limitations noted earlier,
there are technological limitations precluding anyone from declaring
that even these less fundamental kinds of correlations have been
excluded empirically.

And this word-salad means what?
It is fundamental to quantum physics that quantum events are purely
random.
This simple fact blows your wordy assertions appart.

<remainer snipped on the grounds that life is too short to waste it
reading badly worded bullshit>

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... What the hell is the "quantum state" of DNA? ... mutations are trivially correlated with events and states ... of such correlations. ... If you wish to talk physics, you would need to learn some first. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... that mutations occur at random in respect to ... What the hell is the "quantum state" of DNA? ... of such correlations. ... If you wish to talk physics, you would need to learn some first. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... You're using the analogy to claim that DNA is too complex to have ... But in fact advantageous mutations do happen randomly. ... Is the resultant sequence more or less specific than the ... Yet they all have eyes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... of DNA and the ability of cells to repair DNA. ... that doesn't imply that the mutations behind the observed ... immediate environment, which in turn are correlated with the larger (in ... accepting even this weaker RM conjecture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... of DNA and the ability of cells to repair DNA. ... that doesn't imply that the mutations behind the observed ... immediate environment, which in turn are correlated with the larger (in ... accepting even this weaker RM conjecture. ...
    (talk.origins)