Information created accidentally, without design

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 11, 2013

Darwinism, Design inference, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Absolutely no one did this stuff, according to sources, which just shows how silly the idea is that intelligence is needed to create information.

Darwinism can explain it all quite easily. Natural selection acted on random mutation causing certain trees to die. End of story.

Hat tip: The Intelligent Design Facebook group, and especially Timothy Kershner and Junior D. Eskelsen

Comments

Notice how posters at UD, when at a loss, open a thread at TSZ? I've never understood why. There's no help over there.Mung_{August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

FYI, Alan Fox posted the translation system challenge here. (My main concern is about how often I will have the time to participate, as I was already time stretched. I will contribute as I can.)ericB_{August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Score another for ID theory!Mung_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

LoL! Alan posted Eric's challenge over on TSZ and as predicted no one is up to the task.Joe_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Well Alan it is a given that neither you nor any TSZ regular has a clue. The safe bet is not one of you can produce a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution producing a transcription and traslation process...Joe_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Many are those who would not even make the attempt to think it through.
Many? That's a bit of a stretch, ericB! I doubt more than half a dozen people have read your 296. Anyway, I thought I'd go ahead and post your comment as an opening post at TSZ. If there's anything you'd like to correct, you can let me know here or at TSZ.Alan Fox_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Evolution is a process of environmental design.
Unguided evolution cannot design anything. Alan is a confused liar. There still isn't any scientific theory of unguided evolution. And no one over on TSZ is up to any challenge...Joe_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

AVS:
“Plenty of evidence for a designer”? Ha, I lost it at that one.
Most likely you were born lost....Joe_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

AVS, thanks for diving in! You have gone to the head of the line for being willing to take a stab at this question. When I ask about the origin of a translation system, I am asking about how it comes to be that we have in every living cell a decoding system, i.e. translation via some code. (That's, of course, the distinction of translation from a process such as transcription.) If you look at the description I've provided @296 of the generalized components of a translation system, you'll get a sense of what I'm talking about. They are generalized in the sense that I'm not assuming the original forms were the same as what we see today. The challenge is to see whether it is rational to expect unguided chemicals to make any such system that translates (i.e. decodes) according to a code. You can also get a sense of the nature of the problem from the questions that I ask @362. Please consider whether you think you have answers for those types of questions. Looking forward to hearing your additional thoughts. Thanks again for giving it a shot! Many are those who would not even make the attempt to think it through.ericB_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Sorry, missed out the word 'scientific'Alan Fox_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

@ Biped Of course there is design in nature. Evolution is a process of environmental design. "Intelligent Design" is another matter. There is no theory of ID that I know of, as yet.Alan Fox_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

ericB @ 362 Your challenge is not going to get much attention on a deeply buried thread on a site with a mixed moderation history. You are welcome to tidy it up and I'll post it at TSZ. Or you can do it yourself, if you don't mind registering.Alan Fox_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

@ Biped Nobody is arguing for non-natural processes, except maybe ID-proponents.Alan Fox_{August 16, 2013
August
08
Aug
16
16
2013
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

The process of translation in biology has a physico-chemically arbitrary relationship between the arrangement of nucleotides and their effects because it has to. It's a physical necessity. You are welcome to whatever satisfaction you derive from envisioning a system without it. goodnightUpright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

My system converts nucleic acid sequence into amino acid sequence. Thats translation enough for me, and apparently the rest of the scientific world because thats exactly what the process of translation is in biology.AVS_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

You don't have translation system until you have a physico-chemically arbitrary relationship instantiated in the system.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

Ah yes, sarcasm. Might I remind you though that the original task was to come up with "one or more coherent scenarios for the creation of a translation system by unguided chemicals." That is what I did. It was you that stormed in asking me to create a translational system that also uses a triplet codon and whatnot else. I answered your friends question, now you want me to do the near impossible and recreate the evolution of gene expression for you....well you can go fuck yourself.AVS_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Allow me to be brief as well.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Well to sum it all up quickly, your extra dimensions arise from small changes to the nucleic acid sequences and the proteins that interact with them. I proposed a mechanism that provides a simple coding system that can then be modified by unguided changes and become more and more complex, like what we see today.AVS_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

avs, At what point in your scenario is the dimensionality of the code established? In order to produce a functional effect, the current system is established at three nucleotides for each iterative action - plus a start and a stop. Also, you don’t seem to provide any mechanism beyond the determinant forces of inexorable law. You can’t derive - from inexorable law - the relationship that the arrangement of nucleotides has to the effect it produces. That’s not how the system operates. The relationship to the effect is established locally, not globally, and it’s established by a second arrangement of matter that preserves this arbitrary relationship. The relationship has to be there for the very reason that the arrangement of the medium has to produce the effect because inexorable law can’t. It doesn’t have that to give. Not only does it not have that to give, but we already know that the relationship is determined locally within the system. So the origin of system becomes the question, and that question can’t be answered by an appeal to inexorable law alone. So you’re going to need a mechanism to establish the three nucleotide dimension. And you’ll need one to establish the relationships between the differing arrangements and their effects. And you’ll need another to establish enough function within the effect, at least to the level that the system reproduces itself and passes on the relationships that produced it. This represents the rise of the genome, and its required prior to information-based organization.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

So I threw together some ideas about your question above, its very simple but I believe it meets all your requirements, feel free to point out the holes in it so I can explain. -Nucleotides -Nucleic acids -Nucleic acids with catalytic function -Simple protein catalytic activity with simple amino acids forming protein lattices -Single nucleotide pairs with a single amino acid through protein association -Nucleic acids bring amino acids together, forms peptide bonds and simple proteins This is the most basic form of the translational process as we know it today. With nucleic acids and simple proteins being formed and slowly changing structures, their functions can also change and become more complex.AVS_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle entered into that conversation without the faintest clue that the existence of information had specific material requirements. She thought an arrangement of matter could result directly in an effect (medium-->effect) apparently with no need of translation. I remember trying to get her to understand there had to be "a break in the causal chain". To this day, I am not certain she even understands why it must exist. But to her credit, she at least attempted to engage the details (which is far more than someone like Alan Fox would allow himself). The only (really only) poor thing to ascribe to Dr Liddle is that when the material facts became clear to her, she didn't have the scientific integrity to accomodate those facts in her conclusions. Too bad.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

ericB:
Calling all evolutionists / materialists! Your help is needed! Alan Fox has not been able to answer a particular challenge, but perhaps you know an answer.
Elizabeth Liddle famously (or was it infamously) once asserted here at UD that she could do precisely this. It never happened. Right Upright BiPed?Mung_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

EL
It both causes and is caused by things. It contains information in the sense that its sequence, to requote Merriam Webster “produce[s] specific effects”. A stone can “cause” me to trip without being an “active agent”.
Unbelievable. She can trip over s rock and that qualifies as information according to Webster's because the stone has some:
attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
Yup. It's true. You cannot reason with irrational people.Mung_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

EL @274:
The only thing I am disputing is that the system can be reasonably called “symbolic”.
You are, as is so typical of your approach to dealing with uncomfortable issues, contradicting yourself. Or are you recanting your former position on Shannon Information?
But it’s not something I’m going to go to the stake over.
For reasons apparently obvious to everyone but you. Christians, otoh, were crucified without apology for their belief.Mung_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Calling all evolutionists / materialists! Your help is needed! Alan Fox has not been able to answer a particular challenge, but perhaps you know an answer. The issue is simple and the bar is purposely set low. The question is whether there exists one or more coherent scenarios for the creation of a translation system by unguided chemicals. As discussed @296, any such system requires multiple interdependent parts in order to function. The components on their own are typically useless for providing any benefit from their translation function. That presents an obvious difficulty for mindless, unguided chemicals that cannot pursue distant goals, have no intentions, and have no need for such a system since they already fulfill all the laws of chemistry and physics in lifeless arrangements without any such system. Notice that the challenge is not to prove that any such scenario is true, or even most likely. Furthermore, as clarified @302, for the sake of the question, feel free to assume the existence of any amount of DNA material or RNA material as a substance suitable to serve as an information medium. However, you cannot freely assume specific arrangements of nucleotides without justification. The nature of the challenge is to provide a coherent scenario that does not obvious conflict with the known behavior of chemicals operating according blindly to the laws of physics and chemistry. For example, assuming chemicals have an ability to build toward a future benefit in a goal directed manner would be an obvious violation. A reasonable scenario would address obvious issues of sequence. For example... Do you propose that a decoding mechanism developed prior to the existence of meaningful / functional encoded information? If so, how could that be? Do you propose that encoded information developed prior to a decoding mechanism that could decode it to its functional form? If so, how could that be? How is the store of encoded information to be originally populated? With the help of an encoding mechanism? If so, before or after the existence of a matching decoding mechanism? And how was consistency between encoded and decoding established? If the original encoded information did not come from an encoding mechanism, then how else? While it may be that Alan Fox and others are content to take a giant leap of blind faith and trust there are unknown, indescribable answers to all these apparent contradictions with reality and the actual behavior of chemicals, many of us are skeptical of such blind faith and find it beyond our ability to simply believe and take it on faith despite what is known. We prefer to look for answers that are at least compatible with reason and plain evidence -- answers that do not obviously conflict with the known behavior of chemicals, for instance. So if you can think of some solid answers, please share them! Of course, if no one can even think of any coherent unguided / undirected answers to this challenge that hold up under scrutiny, then one obvious possibility that must be considered is that there are no such scenarios. It may be that all translation systems, by their very nature, require the intentional design of intelligent agents that can build toward a goal and future functionality.ericB_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

The most important question unanswered being ” …in what possible sense is your “semiotic argument” an argument for Intelligent Design?”
Yes, having retracted her claim, the most important question is how a system of symbols could possibly support the proposition of design in nature. good griefUpright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

I’m perfectly aware that semiotics is a field of study, William, which is why I said ‘“Semiotics” is a field of study.’ in comment #348.
The entry isn't about semiotics, Alan. It's about BIOsemiotics, which is a growing scientific field about that which you claim doesn't exist (semiotics in biology) and for which (you imply) there have been no published papers.William J Murray_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Standard Alan Fox. The exchange with Dr Liddle ended in her retracting her claim. The exchange with Reciprocating Bill ended with his concession of his two main counter-arguments. I have the links to each of those concessions if you really must see them yet again. Will you be linking to your own rebutal at some point, or will you continue to push shadows in the ring?Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Oops posted #357 prematurely! Here it is in full.
As I’ve maintained… No Translation = Not Symbolic or No Encoding and No Decoding = Not Symbolic Sadly, I think these words may be invisible to Alan Fox.
@ ericB See the thread linked to in my previous comment. Upright Biped had sufficient self-confidence in his argument to mount a defence at TSZ. See here for instance. Also see onward links in that thread to other threads where Dr. Liddle tries hard to get Upright Biped to clarify his argument. The most important question unanswered being " ...in what possible sense is your “semiotic argument” an argument for Intelligent Design?" LinkAlan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply