The Snowflake and Evolution

Originally posted by jaywill
If this is your main complaint about the weakness of the article then that's not very impressive. You are trying to make a major objection about a rather minor issue of English composition.

So do you agree that the English composition is incorrect in that sentence?

The sentence - [b]"There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms" ripped out of all context by you, only showcases your own desperate cleverness. [/b]
When did I 'rip it out of all context'? I was the one that gave you the link to the article (which you had not read) and when I quoted the sentence it was after you had read the article and I assumed you knew the context, and you asked specifically for a quote of only the portion that was blatantly false.
Who is desperate?

There is no reason to ignore the word [b]THEREFORE in the sentence to see precisely what rational has proceeded the sentence. [/b]
I do not ignore it. The sentence in context, remains false.

It is reasonable to assume that mainly the author is discrediting the analogy as it relates to the origin of life.
There is no need to make any assumptions. The author makes it quite clear what properties are involved in the analogy:

Sometimes evolutionists claim that snowflakes show that order can arise from disorder, and more complex structures from simple ones, based purely on the inherent physical properties of matter. Therefore, the reasoning goes, life could have arisen from simple molecules that organize themselves in a way that ultimately leads to more complex structures, and eventually the first living cell.

But he then ignores the whole concept of an analogy and goes on to find differences between snowflakes and life and then makes the outrageous claim that 'there is no analogy'.

If you WANT to twist your case you could understand the man to be saying that NO POSSIBLE ANALOGY OF ANY KIND could EVER be made between snowflakes and living organisms, sure, you could push that. But I count is not terribly honest of you. And if that is your main objection to the article it certainly doesn't merit it being ignored by most reasonable people, I think.
It isn't my objection. I realised from the beginning that what he meant was 'its a poor analogy for the properties in question'. But the problem is he goes about it by deliberately finding new properties that were not included in the original analogy he is trying to discredit.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]


[b] Evolution 1 Creation 0

Devastating rebuttal there !

By the way. The article also said that the formation of snow crystals was not direct evidence for Creation.[/b]

you are missing the point jaywill. its not an argument about evolution and creation. its about the meaning of the word 'analogy'.

as ive stated before i could say a goat is like a lawn mower as an analogy about goats eating grass being a little bit like cutting grass. the guys in the video are effectively saying something like 'thats a stupid analogy to compare a goat to a lawn mower, a goat has 4 legs, horns, shaggy coat and is a complex living organism' to disprove and attempt to debunk my analogy. can you see how stupid that is jaywill?

evolution 0 creation 0

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you are missing the point jaywill. its not an argument about evolution and creation. its about the meaning of the word 'analogy'.

as ive stated before i could say a goat is like a lawn mower as an analogy about goats eating grass being a little bit like cutting grass. the guys in the video are effectively saying something like 'thats a stupid analog mpt to debunk my analogy. can you see how stupid that is jaywill?

evolution 0 creation 0

You think you're the only one around here who can be persistent ?

I repeat to you what I wasted on the other poster:

I don't think the video referenced is dishonest or ignorant. It may be biased towards its view - exactly the way you are in just about everything you write. And it may not have been exhaustive - exactly the way you are not exhaustive in every post that you write.

The article upon which the discussion on the video is based:

http://creation.com/treasures-of-snow

Copied without permission from - http://creation.com/treasures-of-snow

"Sometimes evolutionists claim that snowflakes show that order can arise from disorder, and more complex structures from simple ones, based purely on the inherent physical properties of matter. Therefore, the reasoning goes, life could have arisen from simple molecules that organize themselves in a way that ultimately leads to more complex structures, and eventually the first living cell.

Sidebar
=====================================
5
The organization in proteins and DNA is not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves, any more than forces between ink molecules make them join up into letters and words.
==========================================

But crystals are nothing like a living cell. Formed by the withdrawal of heat from water, they are dead structures that contain no more information than is in their component parts, the water molecules. Life forms, on the other hand, came into existence, evolutionists believe, through the addition of heat energy to some postulated primordial soup. Not only are these processes very different, but life requires the emergence of new information (a code) in order to take over the functions of organization and reproduction of a cell. There is therefore no analogy between snow crystals and the far, far greater complexity of living organisms.

More importantly, the organization in proteins and DNA is not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves, any more than forces between ink molecules make them join up into letters and words. Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), a former chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK) who turned to philosophy, confirmed this:


“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content …”.

Aside from a arguable usage of the word "analogy" in good English prose above:

What in snowflake crystalization would be analogous to coded information directing their shapes and functions (as in the directives of DNA coding) ?

What in snowflake crystal formation would be analogous to the components of living cell containing new information ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Aside from a arguable usage of the word [b]"analogy" in good English prose above:

What in snowflake crystalization would be analogous to coded information directing their shapes and functions (as in the directives of DNA coding) ?

What in snowflake crystal formation would be analogous to the components of living cell containing new information ?[/b]

It hinges on the usage of the word 'analogy' or rather its misuse and an attempt to prove that there 'is no analogy'.
What you are essentially saying here amounts to a strawman argument because you are demanding that there be an analogy between the coded information directing shapes and functions in life forms and something in snow flakes when no such analogy has been claimed.
The properties in the analogy are clearly stated in the article ie

Sometimes evolutionists claim that snowflakes show that order can arise from disorder, and more complex structures from simple ones, based purely on the inherent physical properties of matter.

Now tell us whether or not snow flakes demonstrate this or not? If they do, then an analogy can be drawn between the snow flakes and similar properties of life.
Remember that this analogy is brought up in response to the claim by creationists that life violates a rule whereby complex structures cannot arise from simple ones.

Originally posted by jaywill

What in snowflake crystalization would be analogous to coded information directing their shapes and functions (as in the directives of DNA coding) ?

What in snowflake crystal formation would be analogous to the components of living cell containing new information ?[/b]

bloody hell man!!! its like walking through treacle.

if i start a conversation and i want to use an analogy to compare two things then i can choose what aspects of the two things i wish to say are alike.

example: the goat is like a lawn mower.

this cannot be argued against, its a fair comparison, regardless of how different the two things are.

if you started the conversation and asked me -

what part of a lawn mower is analogous to the coded information in a goats dna?

id probably say "there isnt any"

but that doesnt stop my first analogy being correct. im sure you agree so far.

the problem with the video is that the guys are taking the analogy out of context and adding questions and comparisons that the original analogy was not intended to be used for. nobody said that snowflakes are analogous to the functions of dna, they are simply saying life came from simple beginnings and became complex and snowflakes start of simple and become complex.

i mentioned fractals before. so another example of an analogy would be.

i think fractals are a bit like evolution because they show how complex things can be created from simple beginnings.
this statement is correct. i have not mentioned biology, dna, intelligence, codes, functions or anything like that. i am just comparing the two aspects. its the same as comparing the snowflake. it is you and the guys in the video who are trying to add more to the analogy than is meant.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
bloody hell man!!! its like walking through treacle.

if i start a conversation and i want to use an analogy to compare two things then i can choose what aspects of the two things i wish to say are alike.

example: the goat is like a lawn mower.

this cannot be argued against, its a fair comparison, regardless of how different the two things are. ...[text shortened]... . it is you and the guys in the video who are trying to add more to the analogy than is meant.

A goat is not like a lawnmower.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
bloody hell man!!! its like walking through treacle.

if i start a conversation and i want to use an analogy to compare two things then i can choose what aspects of the two things i wish to say are alike.

example: the goat is like a lawn mower.

this cannot be argued against, its a fair comparison, regardless of how different the two things are. ...[text shortened]... . it is you and the guys in the video who are trying to add more to the analogy than is meant.

Outside of computer generated shapes (which is an intelligently designed operation) can you give me an example of a pure Fractal in the natural world ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Outside of computer generated shapes (which is an intelligently designed operation) can you give me an example of a pure Fractal in the natural world ?

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/home/sandau/biofractals/abstract_sfi.html

Originally posted by jaywill
Outside of computer generated shapes (which is an intelligently designed operation) can you give me an example of a pure Fractal in the natural world ?

Could you define "pure"? I can't even think of an example of a pure triangle in the natural world, if pure means what I think it might.

I am learning about these do-hickies.
A refresher.

Here are suppose to be some in nature's life:
YouTube


But another site said there were no pure fractals in nature but perhaps all had a touch of randomness somewhere involved. So info so far is a bit varied.

I know what a recursive algorithim is from my programming days. All programmed fractal routines are like logic that calls itself and itself and itself in an embedded recursive relationship.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/home/sandau/biofractals/abstract_sfi.html

Thanks. There's a bunch of articles out there.

Originally posted by jaywill
But another site said there were no pure fractals in nature but perhaps all had a touch of randomness somewhere involved.

The technical mathematical definition of a fractal depends on a mathematical concept called fractal dimension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension
Since it basically depends on infinite scale, I do not think true fractals can exist outside of mathematics.
However, 'fractal' is also generally used to refer to any pattern that repeats itself at different scales. This does not however man an exact replica or repetition. The famous Mandelbro Set for example is infinitely varied and never repeats itself.
Many things in nature fit this description.
Randomness has nothing to do with whether or not something is a fractal or not.