I have been unconvinced about a principled IC and this week I have wondered if entropy increases are not correlated with changes in free path lengths of molecular motion which composites into a proteins' given locomotion from its past amino acid changes. It even seems possible that differences in 1-D symmetry *fully* explain the given material IC 'targets'.
If macrothermodynamics is more than a qualitative position on the relation of DNA stability and chemical degredation (it might remand form appearing old in shape but young in chemical mixture etc) and 1-D symmetry of any kind of polymer in the cells then it seems that IC is reducible to claims about D'Arcy Thompson transform metrics NOT being purely chemical. They might be purely biophysical orbe by being informed by notions of Shannon type definitions but so far , I am unimpressed with ID's IC except as a principle of 1-D structure consequences.
Perhaps I will learn that this conference indeed brought IC notions this far?
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-07-2005 06:43 PM
I am fully convinced of the existence of what I Kant named , "designed effect" in the Critique of Judgement but the place where this notion could have been brought in at the conference but does not seem to have occurred is where you reported,
quote: Nelson’s message was primarily that there is strong evidence for multiple independent origins life and that abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution are at major odds with each other.
The designed effect as an effect IS biased to original earth extrapolations of life and there can still be some prior human design even if there is life orginiating randomly in more than one place in the systematic constiution no matter what the debate about a univers's center and edge is or is not.
I do not understand why Creationists have not attempted to read Kant backward in explaining there right to exist. That much seems uncensorable by science fearing religion in the appearence of authority nor by govt giving freedom to the LOWER faculty.
It is not a position that main line scientists miscognize the double nature of the cause and effect here.
It seems doubled because two material diretums substitute where the "struggle" is in form for shape not the base fudamental elements. Thus G. Gladyshev seems very perceptive from
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS
Georgi P. Gladyshev* International Academy of Creative Endeavors San Diego, USA – Moscow, Russia N. N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences
ABSTRACT The classical formulations of the second law of thermodynamics are presented. Some mistakes in the understanding the physical meaning of this general law of nature are noted. It is asserted that many misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics are related to terminological confusion and the underestimation (the disregard) of the theory developed by J.W. Gibbs and other founders of "true thermodynamics,
quote:I would like to note that the quotations presented below do not pertain to the second law of thermodynamics in its classical form [2, 9, 10]. Today, they may seem surprising, especially taking into account that all this was written several years after Gibbs published his works. For example, Boltzmann (1886) wrote, "The general struggle for existence of animate beings is therefore not a struggle for raw materials - these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all abundantly available—nor for energy which exists in plenty in any body in the form of heat (albeit unfortunately not transformable), but a struggle for entropy, which becomes available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold earth.".