Information created accidentally, without design

_{News
July 11, 2013

Darwinism, Design inference, News

1}_{Categories
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

GAACUUUAAAUUUCUUAAUGGAGAAAUGGUUAAChesterton_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST}

KF
I have much more important, closer to home medical issues today, a big day for my son.
My thoughts are with you today, KF. I have been wondering how things are going.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PST}

Alan Fox:
Firstly, you don’t have a method of calculating CSI.
Yes, we do. YOU are just too ignorant to understand it. OTOH your position has absolutely nothing- which is exemplified by your avoidance of supporting it.Joe_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST}

Lizzie:
I simply do not think it is a SYMBOLIC system.
The EVIDENCE says that it is symbolic. So no one cares what YOU think.Joe_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

Alan Fox:
Except that tranlation of mRNA to protein does not involve symbolism.
Yes, it does- that is according to the experts it does.
It is purely biochemical.
What is the evidence that supports your tripe, Alan? And why don't biologists agree with you?Joe_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PST}

Alan Fox:
Secondly, evolution involves the non-random process of natural selection (or as I like to refer to it, environmental design) so the whole argument about “blind chance” is moot.
In what way is natural selection non-random? Please show your work, or stop lying.Joe_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PST}

F/N: I have put up a headline, here. 1 --> I take the correction, which I spotted after I posted. Cato. 2 --> I see more strawman distortion and red herring tangent tactics. Doubtless, the strawmen are to be soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere. As usual. 3 --> I suggest, on defining ID, the UD reference on that is helpful:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
4 --> The Darwinist proposed body plan macro evo mechanism IS chance based, despite attempts to pretend otherwise. Chance variation [CV] + differential reproductive success in situations [DRS] --> incremental descent with unlimited variations [IDWUM]. The CV is chance, the DRS is largely chance and is in any case a subtraction of info from the pop by extinction of the less lucky, less "favoured" (Darwin's word) or less fit, and the IDWUM is an assumption that -- contrary to what we observe for FSCO/I that well matched multiple parts must be put together the right way to work -- there is a vast, incrementally accessible continent of life functions. For which there is no credible observational evidence. As the tree of life misleading icon reveals on closer inspection of those overwhelmingly absent missing links. 5 --> The bald assertion that there is no way to calculate CSI is a bald faced lie [and yes, your deliberate continuation of a misreresdenation of truth one should know and should acknowledge is a lie, AF . . . ], one that has been repeatedly shown false but is insisted on anyway. Cf here on (esp here), and also cf the work of Durston et al at more sophisticated level. Stating:
Chi_500 = I*S - 500, functionally specific bits beyond the solar system threshold.
6 --> Onlookers, every time you look at a file capacity beyond 500 - 1,000 bits you are looking at CSI. That is a good part of why we know there are billions of test cases that show that FSCO/I is an excellent and reliable indicator of design. And AF knows or should know that. This brazen dismissive statement on his part is deceitful and tells us much about his Carthage must fall attitude. ******** I could go on and on, but I have much more important, closer to home medical issues today, a big day for my son. Good day. KFkairosfocus_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PST}

No that wasn't a Freudian slip. Intelligent and Imaginary are synonymous in the context of ID!Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PST}

Your link supports my point hat ID only has default arguments.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.
Notice that "chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution"!
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists.
Then why has nobody ever done it? And counting numbers of nucleotides or residues is trivial. It tells us nothing that we didn't already know. Logarithmic transforms only manipulta the data. Nothing extra is added.
Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
Humans communicate using language and can build machines. Yet life existed on Earth for possibly 3 billion years before people! What a daft analogy!
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.
Notice that "known"? There's the key to the default argument! We don't know what we don't know. Defaulting to "Imaginary Design" because we don't yet have an evidence-based explanation is not science.Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PST}

Now, back to the challenge of actually — per observation — generating FSCO/I beyond 500 – 1,000 bits [oops above] by blind chance or mechanical necessity.
Several issues here! A couple to start with. Firstly, you don't have a method of calculating CSI. You don't have an agreed concept of CSI and its variants. CSI{Dembski}=/=FSC{Durston}=/=FSCO/I{GEM} and all is merely a default argument assuming (following the argument that "chance alone" cannot generate complexity "Intelligent Design" must occur. As to how, when, how often, by whom... we are left to speculate on the supernatural and how imaginary forces could impinge on reality and how this might be measured. Secondly, evolution involves the non-random process of natural selection (or as I like to refer to it, environmental design) so the whole argument about "blind chance" is moot.Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PST}

Cato the Elder, not Cicero, KF!Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PST}

PS: IDEA's summary of the scientific framework of ID in a nutshell. Now, back to the challenge of actually -- per observation -- generating FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits [oops above] by blind chance or mechanical necessity.kairosfocus_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PST}

Onlookers: AF has been at UD from the beginning. Eight years. He therefore full well knows -- it having been stated in his presence umpteen times -- that, for instance, a clear case of observation where genuinely blind chance and mechanical necessity are observed to generate an increment of 500 - 1,0000 bits or more of FSCO/I (equivalent, roughly to a protein code of 250 - 500 AA's/codons) would be decisive against ID. (Cf. here and here on. Likewise, Durston's one-pager here and here at ENV are helpful. Meyer's essay on methodological equivalence of design and descent approaches here will also be useful.) In short, it is a longstanding test-point of ID that beyond a relevant bound set by solar system or observed cosmos scale atomic resources, FSCO/I (or any similar form) will not credibly be accessible by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Of course, there have been many attempts over the years. Every one of them, from canals perceived on Mars by astronomers 100+ years ago, to the infamously misleading Weasel and genetic algorithms, to a YouTube video of clocks allegedly evolving blindly, have been shown to depend crucially on subtle or blatant injection of active information that narrows the target zone. Similarly, he full well knows that it is now ten full months since a direct challenge to address warrant for the evolutionary materialist picture of origins for the world of life through a ~ 6,000 word essay [maximum reasonable length for a blog post] with onward links to more and obvious provision for images and videos [as this would be a hosted original post] was put on the table by the undersigned, to address OOL and body plan macro-evolution, including the resolution of the pivotal tree of life icon. This has been a free shot at goal offer, and it is utterly telling that after ten months, there have been no serious takers. It is clear then that we are not dealing with reasonable discussion but implacable enmity, which is exactly what Cicero's Carthage must fall [by implication in light of the history of the Punic wars, by any means deemed effective . . . ] catchphrase represented. So, AF is here repeating a talking point he full well knows is false and misleading, the better to enmesh the naive or unwary. That is sad, but we need to face the reality of the sort of implacable, ruthless ideological enmity we are dealing with. KFkairosfocus_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PST}

And in the spirit of Carthago delenda est if anyone has a testable hypothesis of "Intelligent Design", that would be good, too!Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PST}

No alternative representation can be substituted.
This is just so blazingly wrong.
Lizzie is referring to the biochemical properties of DNA, RNA, protein and the biochemical processes of replication, transcription and translation. Mung asserts that Lizzie is wrong to suggest that no alternative "symbols" or "representations" will do the job. Mung can, perhaps support this assertion with an example. Or can he? Let's see! Mung and anyone else is welcome to supply examples of alternative "symbols" to molecules involved in protein synthesis and gene replication.Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PST}

That’s right Alan, and we’ll just bury our heads in the sand any time we hear “RNA Word.”
Well, you are welcome to do so. I have been sceptical about RNA world as a possible route from Ool to self-sustaining self-replicators as I was influenced by Robert Shapiro's views. (Professor Shapiro strongly advocated looking for extra-terrestrial life in order to progress theories of Ool). Allan Miller at TSZ has been a persuasive advocate of RNA world and, looking at the quantity of recently published papers in the field, it seems currently a fruitful area of research.
Well just forget about those RGB cables we used to connect to our monitors and the digital cables we now use to the same effect. (HT: Elizabeth for that analogy.)
Analogies (like cables) work less and less well the further you stretch them. And for yourself, the analogy often seems the explanation, rather than an attempt to model reality.
You people really are amazing. just amazing. And I don’t mean that in a good way.
I have no doubt you have a very low opinion of people that don't share your views (whatever your views might actually be). Should anyone care?Alan Fox_{August 7, 2013
August
08
Aug
7
07
2013
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PST}

Mung @219 Can you please stop being rational, its 2013 and in the eye of the naturalist a can be A and not A! It's just a matter of opinion! What's true for you may or may not be true for them it's all relative you see, just as long as it does not point to the truth of an Intelligent Designer everything is just fine and dandy! What red ball?Andre_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PST}

There are too many comments here to read them all – much less respond. I apologise to anyone who has written something that deserves a response.Mark Frank_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PST}

ericB:
Does anyone (Elizabeth B Liddle, Mark Frank, et al?) think this is a reasonable argument? 1. Even though information X could be converted into many different representations and mediums, receiver R requires that information X is provided in medium M using the encoding convention C, or else R cannot “do its job” with X. 2. Symbolic information would not have this limitation. 3. Therefore, information X must not be symbolic information.
I do! The problem here is your reliance on "symbolic" information. T - is a symbol that we happen to use, by convention, for thymidine. A - is a symbol that we happen to use, by convention, for adenosine. G - is a symbol that we happen to use, by convention, for guanosine. Put them together and what do they spell? TAG! or STOP! Therefore, the only "symbolic information" present is the symbols we ascribe to what they represent. QEDMung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PST}

Mark Frank:
In the case of DNA the code (and I think the word “code” here is used by analogy with human codes) is implemented in the cell machinery and that is the only place it existed for billions of years (of course we have copied in recent decades).
So Mark, how can we determine whether the use of the word "code" is merely by analogy? Ideas? Is there some clear definition of what constitutes "a code" that we can go to as an impartial guide? This subject has been addressed before here at UD and the objection refuted. Some people just refuse to face FACTS. Time for an addition to the weak argument corrective pages.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PST}

ericB:
Consider the convention of Morse code, which involves sequences of short signals (or dots) and long signals (or dashes).
Want to bet there's an underlying design? That what the dots and dashes represent wasn't just "selected" at random? One guess as to which letter in the English alphabet is represented by a single dot.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PST}

kf:
What is going on here is refusal to see a machine level molecular nanotech info system for what it is, a sure sign that the evidence is strongly against the deniers.
Willful blindness. That's what happens when you get your head too close to a high voltage circuit board. =PMung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PST}

Alan Fox:
DNA’s relationship to protein is so obviously physico-chemical, it is hard to comprehend the suggestion of symbolism.
That's right Alan, and we'll just bury our heads in the sand any time we hear "RNA Word." Well just forget about those RGB cables we used to connect to our monitors and the digital cables we now use to the same effect. (HT: Elizabeth for that analogy.) You people really are amazing. just amazing. And I don't mean that in a good way.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PST}

Elizabeth Liddle:
A DNA sequence does not “represent” a protein. It is, rather, a segment of a polymeric molecule which, in an environment that contains certain other polymeric molecules, results in a specific protein. It is, in other words, a physical object that is a necessary, but not sufficient, for that protein to be formed. No alternative representation can be substituted.
This is just so blazingly wrong. These are the kind of people we are dealing with. They do not understand information or information theory, and they do not understand biochemistry. Or they are just "addle-headed." DNA is transcribed into RNA. The RNA stands in quite nicely, thank you very much. Many people, Elizabeth probably among them, believe RNA preceded DNA.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PST}

Mark Frank:
As far as I know, biologists and information scientists do not say that nucleotide strings hold symbolic information.
In the midst of moving. Books in storage. Gah! reminder to follow-upMung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PST}

Mark Frank:
I was pointing out that there are lots of instances where “A causes B and A is not symbolic information about B.”
Well DUH! Why would you even think you needed to point that out?
Actually, as I pointed in #133 a paper tape, magnetic tape, punched card need not contain any information at all. The holes/magnetic marks may be totally meaningless.
So you don't fall into the "meaningless information" camp of Elizabeth Liddle and Allen McNeill?Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PST}

UBP:
Attempts to characterize the system in language that doesn’t reference how the system actually functions is like trying to characterize thermodynamics without reference to heat or energy.
Mung:
Is still cold air more or less “ordered” than still hot air?
That one is still awaiting a response from EL.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PST}

Dr Liddle, your comments are duly noted. Where they are not incoherent, they are trivial.
She does stand out in a crowd, doesn't she. Meaningless information is as meaningful as useless information. UPB, I am happy to do the slogging through nonsense that you have long ago given up doing :)
A meaningless signal can be transmitted noisily or losslessly.
A meaningless signal. What would that consist of? Wikipedia:
A signal as referred to in communication systems, signal processing, and electrical engineering "is a function that conveys information about the behavior or attributes of some phenomenon".
Oh, and back to info 101. It's aboutness.
Both meaningful and meaningless signals can be transferred directly and physically into some other physical form
How? How does one translate a "meaningless signal"? According to what code?
“I’M RATHER ADDLE-HEADED RIGHT NOW ” – Elizabeth Liddle
More honesty and less obfuscation can do wonders for addle-headedness.Mung_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

Does anyone (Elizabeth B Liddle, Mark Frank, et al?) think this is a reasonable argument? 1. Even though information X could be converted into many different representations and mediums, receiver R requires that information X is provided in medium M using the encoding convention C, or else R cannot "do its job" with X. 2. Symbolic information would not have this limitation. 3. Therefore, information X must not be symbolic information. Is it not obvious that the constraints here are properties and limitations of the receiver R that works with X, and not a valid critique on the nature of X? Elizabeth, if I am mistaken, please correct me. It seems that you, at least, think there is something to this argument so long as... X=the information in protein coding DNA R=a ribosome M=mRNA, and C=the genetic code used by that ribosome. But would anyone still think this argument makes sense when, for example, X=food recipes, R=a blind person, M=printed using raised dots on paper (not ink on paper), and C specifies the braille convention known to that blind person. OR X=food recipes, R=a sighted person who reads only English, M=a printed (ink on paper) cookbook (not raised dots), and C specifies that the recipes are in English. "That representation does not work for me" therefore "it must not be symbolic information"? Can we really legitimately infer "not symbolic" from "this reader has these requirements for medium and coding convention"? Those are the limitations of the receiver/processor, not a definition of the concept of symbolic information itself. Since every symbolic information processing system imposes limiting requirements, how does it make sense to deny the nature of symbolic information (i.e. translation by a convention) based on the processing limitations of some processors of that symbolic information?ericB_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PST}

Mark Frank @178 wrote:
In principle this is no different from dropping stones into a complex river pattern and noting the resulting changes in water flow downstream. It is just a very complicated river pattern and reliable river pattern.
Every physical system involves cause and effect. As long as you only think about cause and effect, you won't be able to distinguish symbolic information processing systems from systems that do not involve symbolic information. They both involve cause and effect. It is an irrelevant consideration for the topic, since it does not provide any distinction. When you say, "In principle this is no different ...", the mistake you are making is failing to consider the pivotal distinction, which is translation. The rock examples do not involve any translation. Genetic codes and Morse codes do involve translation. Translation is the hallmark of symbolic information. If you need to translate according to a code, you have symbolic information. If you can trace cause and effect without any translation according to any coding convention, then you don't have symbolic information. @180 you wrote:
Well there is one obvious difference. In the case of a human code the code is defined first and then possibly a machine is built to implement it (or possibly not). In the case of DNA the cell machinery existed first and we worked out the code to describe the relationship between DNA and protein. i.e the first case is prescriptive the second case descriptive.
The order in which we learned about something does not determine its nature. When you say, "we worked out the code to describe the relationship..." it almost seems to be the case that you believe the genetic code is something we just made up after the fact. Yet, whether we knew about it or not, it has been real for the entire history of cells that make proteins. Cells require translation to make proteins. You asked, Where is the dictionary? and I showed you the cell's dictionary for its coding convention, i.e. the set of transfer RNA molecules it uses to map from codon to amino acid. How might we use any mapping dictionary for symbolic equivalence? We look up a word or term and find its associated entry. How does the cell go from codon to amino acid? It finds the matching entry from its set of associations and applies the associated amino acid entry. If you are reluctant to acknowledge this is a true and genuine coding convention, what is the principled reason for not accepting this as a fact? Forewarning: Answers such as, "codes are made by humans", would not be legitimate distinctions. In terms of the work of translation, how is the cell not using a true code to map from codons to amino acids?ericB_{August 6, 2013
August
08
Aug
6
06
2013
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Next