Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:44 AM
A discussion about whether or not something can, or cannot happen, is philosophical.
Scientists seek to minimize all intrusions of chance whenever seeking to arrive at a scientific conclusion.
A theory reliant on chance is a philosophical theory not a scientific one.
Which is fine if anyone wants to theorize with no conclusions ever being possible.
It is interesting to me to see how neither side of the special-creation/macro-evolution debates admit that there is no such thing as a science of past events. All existing evidences must be interpreted as to their cause and placement within natural history.
It is my opinion, a claim as to possibilities is not evidence. At a minimum, all possibilities should be numerically expressed instead of philosophically.
I don't think that very many debators have comprehended the improbability of any creation event, or macro-evolutionary one.
I like to try and bring the comprehension of readers into the framework of the real world we live in, and avoid some fairytale land of possibility thinking that is not rooted in natural facts.
We know that there exists strings of data set in a particular orders, such that, after translation into a strings of amino acids, those strings can finally be folded into various structures that always cosistently evidence design parameters of fitness, form and function in a higher functioning, more complex system.
And, we know that the original data string has no known feedback mechanism available for error correction.
We have regulation of production and results but, no regulation of the original coded data string.
We are confronted with systems that produce only, "Go/No Go"..."Pass/Fail", non analytical, results.
That is, within the macro-evolution paradigm there exists no analytical mechanism providing feedback to the input stage of a process.
When we observe control loop technologies, we see that there are OPEN LOOP stages of process systems, and CLOSED LOOP stages of process systems.
When we confront a closed loop process stage we discern that there is feedback of results being looped back to the input of the process to correct for errors in outputs that tend toward exceeding the acceptable parameters of the system at large.
There are such closed loops in biological systems. In each closed loop an analysis is performed to determine the control measure useful to achieve optimum systsem functioning.
These loops are much like a seesaw, that is, they are a very precisely balanced forces.
As we all know, balancing is seldom achieved by luck, such as balanced rocks on pinnacles left there after the flood waters of Noah's flood removed the surrounding sediments. That is, the balanced rocks are far fewer in number than the ones distributed on the ground.
But, in a system the likehood of achieving balance is nil, because, within the system all components of the system must meet the three parameters of fit, form and function.
But, let me point to the more curiouser problem evidenced in biological systems.
The OPEN LOOP.
The open loop is a loop that exhibits no feedback mechanism providing a analytical control of the input based on objective knowledge of the output of the controlled loop.
So, how are open loops possible?
They are onlymade possible, in the real world of science and technology, by the former analysis effort of a designer/designers.
That is, all things that have a useful function, are things that are confronted with problems that must be solved, which is why analytical design is a must. Otherwise, one is left with only the hope that something will arise by luck, time and time again. And then, of course, added to that strange situation is the problem of timeliness. It is, the time frame that is the death nell of wishful hopes and dreams of some fortuitous event. I think God created all things in six days lest he otherwise be thought incompetent and waiting on luck. And, that he didn't created instantaeneously lest man have no measure of skills involved, and presume his ability conforms to magic and not science aforethougt.
So, when I see a open loop, and a beautifully, precisely balanced one, then I know that not only is a skilled designer responsible for that balanced system function, but, the designer had to have been wise. For, wisdom is proven by a intellectual's ability to foresee all possibilities ahead of time and know that the open loop stage he has designed will meet those possible challenges adequately. Kind of like, the wise man who counts the cost before he begins to build.
So, we have that string of coded data that is an open looped input to the system to which it provides its benefictial data.
If the string is compromised the system loses a function.
We find in cell that the copy mechanisms provide for correction of errors and so, the original data is kept as free of ruination as copying of official copies can achieve.
But, lets look at the possibilities required to achieve the correct result.
If a protein required two codons, we see that each codon makes available 1 of twenty possibilities, if the codon is functioning as it should. And, since there are two codons required for the protein, then the possibilities multiply, and so, the possibilities become 1 out of 400 as a correctly matched pair. And, since the two could be in the wrong order that is 800 to 1.
And, from there we look at the real world of 480 ordered codons? and, we supposedly are to reason it scientific to think there is a possibility of achieving a useful protein possessing fit, form and funtion within a higher sytsem function? by luck? without feedback of errors that caused untold possibilities of ruination of the system whole?
If you stood and watched a man strike a cue ball into another ball and drive that second ball into the required pocket, you might begin to wonder if the man was skilled or lucky.
IF the man did it consistently you would deem him a skilled designer of his outcomes.
But, what if the man drove the cue ball into set of balls that combinated to achieve a required result. Then you would immediately suspect skill by design.
But, note that if the combinatory ability reached, lets say, ten balls, then we might suspect magical manipulations.
And that is a good analogy about possibilities because, the balls are spheres presenting a infinity of possible angles from which to be struck at, and thus well lends itself the seeming infinity of possibilities in the cosmos at large.
Or, consider a less difficult, yet impossible thing.
A labyrinth for a marble.
One way in.
Each subsequent path ends with two choices.
When a marble arrives at the end of a blind alley it falls out a hole and vanishes out of the labyrinth.
All paths taken are taken by chance.
How long will it take a recycling marble to get out of the labyrinth of ten choices?
Much less, out of hundreds and thousands of choices.
Much less ten marbles exiting in a particularly useful order?
This notion of possibility is the biggest fairytale reasoning of all that is presented as a scientific explanation of causation.