“Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information”

_{William Dembski

May 1, 2009

Evolution, Informatics, Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s our newest paper: “Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information,” by William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, forthcoming chapter in Bruce L. Gordon and William A. Dembski, eds., The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009).

Click here for pdf of paper.

1 The Creation of Information
2 Biology’s Information Problem
3 The Darwinian Solution
4 Computational vs. Biological Evolution
5 Active Information
6 Three Conservation of Information Theorems
7 The Law of Conservation of Information
8 Applying LCI to Biology
9 Conclusion: “A Plan for Experimental Verification”

ABSTRACT: Laws of nature are universal in scope, hold with unfailing regularity, and receive support from a wide array of facts and observations. The Law of Conservation of Information (LCI) is such a law. LCI characterizes the information costs that searches incur in outperforming blind search. Searches that operate by Darwinian selection, for instance, often significantly outperform blind search. But when they do, it is because they exploit information supplied by a fitness function—information that is unavailable to blind search. Searches that have a greater probability of success than blind search do not just magically materialize. They form by some process. According to LCI, any such search-forming process must build into the search at least as much information as the search displays in raising the probability of success. More formally, LCI states that raising the probability of success of a search by a factor of q/p (> 1) incurs an information cost of at least log(q/p). LCI shows that information is a commodity that, like money, obeys strict accounting principles. This paper proves three conservation of information theorems: a function-theoretic, a measure-theoretic, and a fitness-theoretic version. These are representative of conservation of information theorems in general. Such theorems provide the theoretical underpinnings for the Law of Conservation of Information. Though not denying Darwinian evolution or even limiting its role in the history of life, the Law of Conservation of Information shows that Darwinian evolution is inherently teleological. Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms.

Comments

Why is it wrong to respond to the paper here, as the paper was the subject of a post here and thus made the subject of comment. Dembski would not have posted if he didn't want comments. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Tom English is a former colleague of Dembski's and has been a part of the history of Dembski developing his ideas.hazel_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Tom English, I find your comments extraordinary and by that not in any positive sense. They seem to be of someone who is angry and attempting to call out Dr. Dembski and in some places on minutiae. And then have the gall to suggest Dr. Dembski contact you as if you are the sole judge on this paper. If you were truly interested in a dialogue between colleagues there is no way you would have used this forum as a means of discussing problems with the paper. You would have gone directly to Dr. Dembski with your points and if he did not respond, approach him here in a friendly manner asking questions and not berating him. The rest of the know nothings here who in reality know nothing about the paper behave as typical for them. We expect this childish behavior from them but we would not expect it from some one who actually understood the content of the paper, has published on the subject and can offer constructive criticisms. Interesting game you are playing.jerry_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

In #134 joseph wrote:
"With common descent characteristics can be lost as well as gained. Nested hierarchies demand additive characteristics."
On the contrary, the loss of a characteristic is just as significant as the gain of a characteristic, and just as important to the construction of a nested hierarchy. All nested hierarchies are based on the comparison between "ancestral" characteristics (called "plesiomorphies") and "derived" characteristics (called "apomorphies"). These are used to construct cladograms (i.e. nested hierarchies) in which shared derived characteristics (called "synapomorphies") are used to infer the branch points in the cladograms. Such synapomorphies need only be derived characteristics, and the loss of a previously existing characteristic counts as an apomorphy just as easily as the gain of a previously non-existent characteristic. The protocols for constructing nested hierarchies were first systematically set out by Willi Hennig, a German entomologist and systematic biologist. Perhaps his most important publication in this regard is Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin, (1950), in which he clearly laid out the algorithms that are now used by virtually all systematists, both inside biology and in many other fields. The only people who think that nested hierarchies are purely additive are people who think that evolution must be relentlessly progressive (which apparently includes virtually all ID supporters). Unfortunately for them, there is abundant empirical evidence that this simply is not the case.Allen_MacNeill_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Evolution does not produce the best, only the better, a comparative measure local in time and space.
And there could be many variations that are "better". And each variation could be competing against the others. But anyway trhere is a HUGE difference betwen the survival of the fittest and the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
Which is why OOL is usually considered a separate topic of investigation from the rest of evolution.
The OoL doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
To a point in a previous comment of yours - the sum of all known lineages is a nested hierarchy.
Only if one doesn't know anything about nested hierarchies. Ya see nested hierarchies are built on CHARACTERISTICS not descent. With common descent characteristics can be lost as well as gained. Nested hierarchies demand additive characteristics.Joseph_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, “Better” is relative. Also random effects can and do take away even the best adapted organisms. Yes. Evolution does not produce the best, only the better, a comparative measure local in time and space. And, as you point out, with no guarantees. But anyway trhere is a HUGE difference betwen the survival of the fittest and the ARRIVAL of the fittest. Which is why OOL is usually considered a separate topic of investigation from the rest of evolution. To a point in a previous comment of yours - the sum of all known lineages is a nested hierarchy.Nakashima_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Beelzebub, I read your earlier comments prior to my response to you. I think the Conservation of Information as a Law is debatable. As to your authoritarian order to return and read the paper before posting again, please point out specifics in the paper to make your point. Otherwise, I consider the remark simply a hostile, sneering attitude and condescending in nature. Not a serious request, but a intellectual blow-off. thanksDATCG_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Tom English, Talk about smuggling in information. Curious, do you cover the NCSE, ACLU, and other Orwellian political police mongors and organizations in your book? You know, the kind where they actually tell scientist what they may or may not say in their thesis and research papers to be published? Nothing like scientific fascism.DATCG_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Bill Dembski, In your third theorem, you make the fitness function something that induces a search, and that is more or less consistent with your exposition indicating that a search uses a fitness function. You claimed in this thread that the theorem generalizes the conventional (folkloric) NFL theorem. But in the original NFL analytic framework, search algorithms operate upon given fitness functions, and there is no notion of a target in the sample space (domain of fitness functions). Furthermore, performance is measured on the sequence of observed values of the function, not the sequence of visited points in the sample space. Your target is in the sample space, and "hitting the target" amounts to measuring performance on the sequence of visited points, rather than the sequence of observed fitness values of those points. I think your failure to see this crucial distinction is, again, that you have fixated on the notion that people use fitness functions to "smuggle in" information. The only way I've ever reconciled your notion of NFL with the original is to regard the target as a dichotomous fitness function -- the characteristic function of the target, to be precise. This is shot to pieces when you make the fitness function something independent of the target. The most natural way to obtain a target in the original framework -- oddly enough, you mentioned this yourself, in some communication with me years ago -- is to threshold the fitness function. That is, the target is the set of all points in the sample space with satisfactory fitness.T M English_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Wm Dembski:
Bob and I, on the other hand, see evolutionary processes traversing configuration spaces and locating things like bacterial flagella.
In a design scenario that makes sense. In a non-design scenario, however, that is a non-starter. And that is my point- their position doesn't have anything to search for. ID has those specifications that can be searched.Joseph_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

beezebub:
Evolutionary theory says that if a better variation arises, it will tend to be preserved by natural selection.
"Better" is relative. Also random effects can and do take away even the best adapted organisms. But anyway trhere is a HUGE difference betwen the survival of the fittest and the ARRIVAL of the fittest.Joseph_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

There aren’t any vision systems to search for. Nakashima
Indeed, which has allowed many different vision systems to be discovered.
That doesn't even make any sense. How can something that doesn't exist be discovered?
There is no one, perfect vision system planned out for all creatures, nor even one system per niche. The distribution of vision systems makes sense given common descent and nested hierarchies, however.
Common descent can at best provide a LINEAGE and a lineage is not a nested hierarchy.Joseph_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Bill Dembski, It hurts to see you jump from interesting philosophy to "Pop Goes the WEASEL" in section 3. You misunderstood the WEASEL long ago, and fixated somewhere along the way on the notion that Dawkins "smuggles in information." The active information of the program is a direct consequence of Dawkins' (vague, pop-sci) model of evolution. Your "smuggling" characterization would make sense if Dawkins were modeling evolutionary search for a single genetic or amino-acid spelling of a protein -- and this seems to be how you regard the WEASEL sentence. In that case, he would indeed be using a fitness function to direct a stochastic process to a "target." But the program makes absolutely no sense as a model of biological evolution from Dawkins' perspective if you regard fitness that way. There is no biological plausibility in cumulative selection -- the process Dawkins said he was illustrating -- of bases or amino acids in a target sequence, and we all know that Dawkins would never say otherwise. What is, in fact, subject to cumulative selection in biological evolution? Phenotypic traits, also known as, appropriately enough, characters. A biotic lineage can accumulate fit characters gradually. And what determines whether a character is fit or not? The environment. This is Darwinism 101 -- just what Dawkins was trying to teach, whether or not he succeeded. Think of a critter in the WEASEL program as expressing traits in 28 dimensions. The WEASEL sentence is then an abstract model of the environment. It specifies, for each of the 28 dimensions, which of 27 possible traits (characters) is fit. In Dawkins' simplistic model, fit traits make identical, additive contributions to overall fitness of the virtual critter, and unfit traits simply make no contribution -- there are no deleterious traits. This choice in modeling fitness is the source of active information. And I don't see a bit of "smuggling" in it. Dawkins was trying to show how his model of evolution differed from searching for the combination that opens a lock. The active information reflects the difference he said he was illustrating. You cannot accumulate correct numbers in a combination by trial and error, but you can accumulate fit traits, provided the rate of mutation of characters is not "too high." A great deal of confusion over the WEASEL program arises from folks' assumption that it implements a genetic algorithm in the traditional sense of mimicking evolution of genotypes. There are also programs that mimic evolution of phenotypes (physical traits). Read a brief survey of evolutionary computation, and then ask yourself, "Are the WEASEL critters like genotypes, or like phenotypes?" Answering with the latter is a no-brainer for me. My objective here is not to embarrass you. Scrutinizing your arguments over the years has taken me into valuable regions of "concept space" I would not have entered otherwise. But I have to say that this whole WEASEL business is just a waste of time and energy. I want to see you challenge us with your strongest arguments. How is it the WEASEL shows up alongside a proposal for a new law of nature? Onlookers: Another WEASEL war is precisely what I do not want. Please let this be an open letter to Bill. He's welcome to contact me by email if he does not want to respond here.T M English_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

Bill Dembski, I've read your chapter closely. (Clever segue from Marx's lead soldiers to Dawkins' characters, you tireless cultural warrior. But I'll get to the essential pun in my next comment.) You give a lucid, honest, and interesting presentation of your philosophical perspective in the first two sections. I've long felt that you should say outright that intelligence creates information. [Go here for more excerpts of T. M. English and G. W. Greenwood, "Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Computation," Chapter 1 of Design by Evolution: Advances in Evolutionary Design, edited by P. F. Hingston, L. C. Barone, and Z. Michalewicz (Springer 2008). That was brazen promotion of a new book, but this is to point you to the 1996 paper in which I actually proved the main "no free lunch" theorem in terms of "conservation of information": Evaluation of Evolutionary and Genetic Optimizers: No Free Lunch (footnote 1 gives full bibliographic data). I don't understand why you've cited later stuff.] On next to section 3.T M English_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Re #104 “So, even though the concept of specification is not explicit in this paper, it is there implicitly” Yes. Your definition of information is crucially dependent on the concept of specification. And I think you need to be more explicit about how this relates to targets. You define the information content of an outcome as -log(p) where p is the probability of an outcome meeting a target. But any event can meet an infinite number of different targets. For example, a bacterial flagellum might meet the target of: * not being fatal to the bacterium * enhancing the bacterium’s fitness * adding to the bacterium’s mobility But also * being less than 1 micron long Each of these targets has different probabilities. Therefore the information content of an outcome is relative to the chosen target. If LCI is to be a law then there must be an objective way of deciding what it is the salient target to use. I thought you addressed this through your concept of specification. As far as I am aware your latest definition of specification is this one. This defines specification in terms of – fits a pattern that can be described simply. But in that case the boulder example should also count as a meeting a target. “Bottom of the valley” is a pattern among all possible locations that can be described very simply. But then a very simple law – things move downwards – causes boulders to meet a target which would otherwise have a low probability. There are very few locations at the bottom of valleys compared to all locations. So if I have correctly described the relationship between target and specification then it appears the LCI is wrong.Mark Frank_{May 5, 2009
May
05
May
5
05
2009
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

Something else to ponder with ball on the hill exercise: Let's say you standing there waiting for the ball to come rolling to a rest behind you so you can use it for a seat. If the landing area is small enough and the ball is funneled to it, there is a reasonable expectation you could do this. Now let's say the landing area becomes much larger and the balls can come down from many different angles. The likelihood of you getting a seat becomes less. Now, let's say you pick a spot to wait where the force of gravity can't carry the ball to you but you have the expectation some unknown power will kick in to get you your seat. In that case, my friend, you must be an evolutionist :-)tribune7_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Another thing to consider vis-a-vis Dembski and Marks' analysis: On page 34, paragraph 5 of their paper, the authors present the following analogy:
"Just as information needs to be imparted to a golf ball to land it in a hole, so information needs to be imparted to chemicals to render them useful in origin-of-life research."
A similar analogy was made by Mark Frank in comment #99, in which he described what happens when a ball rolls down a "rugged" hill. This analogy is very similar to the one made by C. H. Waddington in his analysis of "epigenetic trajectories" in biological development. Waddington's model is directly applicable to Dembski and Marks' analysis because it demonstrates how genetic (i.e. "internal") and epigenetic (i.e."external") information can dramatically alter the developmental and evolutionary trajectories of developing and evolving entities. Consider the ball rolling down a hill. If the hill is perfectly smooth, then the only prediction one can make with any confidence is that the ball will wind up at the bottom of the hill. However, if the hill has grooves in it (and especially if those grooves are shaped like "watersheds"; that is, they branch and get deeper the further down the slope the ball rolls), then very slight changes in the initial trajectory, along with very slight deviations in trajectory as the balls rolls downhill, can have extremely significant effects on the ball's final location. In Dembski and Marks' model, it appears to me that the grooves in the hillside are what they are referring to as "active information". That is, information that is external to the developing/evolving (i.e. changing) organism and/or population that guides it to a specific end point. Such a process is indeed teleological, but it is important to realize that in Waddington's model, the movement of the ball itself has the effect of defining and altering the grooves in the hillside. That is, as organisms develop and evolve, they alter their environment in ways that then alter their further development and evolution. This continuous feedback process means that the totality information that produces the actual trajectory of the ball is located both in the ball itself and in its environment. Therefore, for Dembski and Marks' model of "active information" to be truly representative of biological reality, it must somehow incorporate not just the "onboard" information in the organism (or DNA molecule, or whatever), but also all of the information in every component of that entity's environment. Furthermore, one of the most salient characteristics of biological information is that it is, indeed, highly "meaningful". That is, the actual function of a DNA sequence is not an intrinsic characteristic of that sequence alone. On the contrary, it depends completely on what that sequence "means" from a biological standpoint. Consider a non-coding sequence of nucleotides in DNA. If a retrovirus transposes an active promoter sequence "upstream" from that non-coding sequence, it seizes being a non-coding sequence. If the mRNA for which it now codes is translated into a protein, it is unlikely that this protein will have a function. Unlikely, but definitely not impossible. This is because many non-coding sequences in eukaryotic DNA are either pseudogenes or degenerate transposons, retroviral cDNA sequences, or repressed regulatory genes (such as those coding for cellular growth factors). If the latter are activated, the result is cancer, a very "meaningful" biological consequence of a seemingly "meaningless" retrotransposition event. The point I am trying to make here is that there may, indeed, be something to the idea that information defined as discrete "bits" may be conserved (i.e. rearranging their sequence will have no effect on the proportion of each bit present in the aggregate). However, this has no necessary connection with the biological "meaning" of the various arrangements of the "bits. But, as any molecular geneticist can attest, it is the sequences of "bits" and their "meaning" (i.e. their relationship to the biological objects and processes for which they code) that makes all the difference.Allen_MacNeill_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

I believe that there is a serious misunderstanding here between the medium in which information is encoded and the meaning of that information. From my own analysis of Dembski and Marks' paper, it seems clear to me that their treatment applies only to the former, whereas the real issue in biological evolution (indeed, all forms of evolution) is the latter. Even if it is the case that the individual components of a "concatenation" of information may be "conserved", despite alterations in the order of those components (e.g. the nucleotides in a strand of nucleic acid or the primary structure of the amino acids in a polypeptide), the "meaning" of the information so encoded is not an intrinsic characteristic of either the "bits" in the message or their sequence. Rather, the "meaning" of such a "string" is a function of its relationship to the objects and processes "for which it stands", and this relationship depends completely on the context within which the information has been encoded, transmitted, decoded, and its meaning made manifest in the structures and functions of the organism. I am currently working on a more formal treatment of the idea of "meaningful information" and its relationship to teleology (inspired at least in part by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks' paper) and will be posting comments on my progress on this treatment at my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.comAllen_MacNeill_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

DATCG, You're veering way off course here. The LCI is not about the conservation of genetic information. Also, the LCI isn't even a conservation law, as I pointed out in an earlier comment. I would urge you to read the paper first and then come back to this thread if you still have questions.beelzebub_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

More questions related to Conservation of Information. Is Conservation of Information proportional to amount of work done or cost to maintain the information? So less work = less energy cost, information deteriorates as entropy takes over. So the Conservation of Information violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? At least for specific time? In our case, 13.7 billion years since the theory of Big Bang? So, active information was funneled in from the beginning that guides the process of increased complexity of specific functional information that violates 2nd law? Is that was it postulated in the paper?DATCG_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, Thanks, trying to get back on topic. In my response to Beelzebub, maybe it relates to our discussion as well. Beelzebub, "Evolutionary theory says that if a better variation arises, it will tend to be preserved by natural selection." A process that tends to preserve better variable information is one that conserves information, no? In that case, if I'm understanding correct, though vision systems are not all optimal, each is preserved as optimal for the niche at that specific time. And time can be relative - long or short - dependent upon the amount of active information and fundamentals of external stimuli at that specific moment in time. Otherwise, the species is superceeded by another, yet with core information that allows it to build upon previous information. I guess the question then is do we find core information present in eyes that are common among all vision systems? Whether verted or inverted? Whether environmental changes or not? In the example of cave fish that Nakashima and I discuss, there is not actual loss of information, only a switch that turns off other cascading events. Yet can immediately be turned back on within one generation. Now if loss of information is true for the fish(i.e. all genetic information is lost) then that is a defintion of entropy, correct? But that also represents a potential loss of energy and cost as well, correct? Thus conservatoin of information like conservation of energy can be/are linked together? What am I not understanding?DATCG_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Beezebub, I'm aware of what theory states today. But, doesn't your response assume there is a verted eye that is better than inverted? How do we know? And isn't each situation an environmentally dependent niche for survival by better adaptations. Some argue scientist can design better eyes, but until an eye is actually engineered, we may not discover why inverted or verted works better for adaptation in each niche. But I'm taking this post off topic as I now see in above comments. Unless maybe active information serves as to limit the blind search guess of inverted versus verted eyes for better adaption in each environmental niche. But I'm not sure if I understand that is the application of Dembski/Mark's paper.DATCG_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Mr DATCG, At the risk of trying Mr Jerry's patience - My statement did not render moot any neo-Darwinian hypothesis. It was predicated on such a hypothesis. Success in an ecological niche relates to function. In this example, many niches reward entities with better light gathering and organizing systems. The critical word is "better". Comparative, not superlative. It doesn't have to be the best, just good enough to fulfill the function. Spending any more time and energy than good enough is a waste. Example: Hawks fly around in the open air, are often thousands of feet away from their prey. Their niche requires excellent vision. Jungle dwelling apes rarely have to see further than ten feet away, because the jungle is incredibly dense. Their vision is tuned to objects 10 feet away or less. Building a hawk's vision into an ape is a waste of energy during development. That's why blind cave fish lose their eyes, to spend the energy somewhere else. But each function, such as sight, can have multiple implementations. A niche such as the ocean (big niche, I know) hosts cephalopods, vertebrates, and arthropods, each with a different vision system. Each is good enough, none is perfect. To bring this back around to the thread topic, Drs. Dembski and Marks are not saying in their paper that each kind of eye is telicly pre-ordained. I think that by claiming that by claiming some teleology is necessary, they are saying that if life is inevitable and/or diverse in certain circumstances, it is because of those circumstances, not because of the blind process of reproduction, variation and selection.Nakashima_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

DATCG asks:
Does this then contradict inverted fish eyes? Or maybe I should ask, do inverted fish eyes contradict Darwin’s principle? If so, was Darwin wrong?
DATCG, Evolutionary theory says that if a better variation arises, it will tend to be preserved by natural selection. It does not say that all possible better variations will arise. An inverted eye is unlikely to "uninvert" itself, because it would require too many simultaneous changes to the genome to achieve an uninverted eye that performs better than its predecessor.beelzebub_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, "Indeed, which has allowed many different vision systems to be discovered. There is no one, perfect vision system planned out for all creatures, nor even one system per niche. The distribution of vision systems makes sense given common descent and nested hierarchies, however." I want to understand your position at it is related to my response in the Sternberg post to Allen. Does the statement above render moot the neo-Darwinian evolutionist explanation for advantageous selection of survival? I ask this because in many evolutionist papers I've read, the reason given for "evolved" components is for more "optimum" survival. From Wiki, on Survival of the Fittest(history and evolving meanings):
"What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment", tracking changing environments by differential preservation of organisms better adapted to live in them. The theory is not tautological as it contains an independent criterion of fitness.[6]" "In the introduction he(Darwin's 5th publication of On Origins of Species) gave full credit to Spencer, writing "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."[11] By the word "fittest" Darwin meant "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common modern meaning of "in the best physical shape".[6]" What is the definition of "local environment?" Is it not "niche?" Can this lead to a statement that evolutionist do believe a vision system can be "better adapted for immediate local environment" or "niche." Thus allowing for "preservation of organisms." It does not insure success of the organism outside its "local environment," but it is qualified as "better adapted" for survival. In that case a vision system can be argued to be "better adapted" for survial in local niche. Does this then contradict inverted fish eyes? Or maybe I should ask, do inverted fish eyes contradict Darwin's principle? If so, was Darwin wrong? I ask this because I see this principle utilized in evolutionist papers all the time. Is there criteria or definitions that I misunderstand? thanks
DATCG_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, I hope you'll find time to respond to my previous two comments, as they raise serious questions about the applicability of the LCI. Link 1 Link 2 Also, I hope you'll answer my earlier question about why you chose to name it the "Law of Conservation of Information" if information is not conserved:
And even more fundamentally, why is it called the “Law of Conservation of Information” when it doesn’t rule out the loss of information? Conservation laws are about quantities that remain constant.
beelzebub_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, Thanks for helping keep us focused!Nakashima_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Here is a very brief layman's explanation of the paper in one page but it does not answer all the questions and probably opens a lot more. http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDdembski.phpjerry_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Dembski and Marks did define "active information" but in terms of symbols in an equation. "Meaningful information" was used by Allen MacNeill several times in one comment but only once in the paper so I don't think this is what active information is. Active information was used about 50 times in the paper. I am sure active information is meaningful but is all meaningful information active information. Probably in some context but not in others so it may not apply in Dembski and Marks formulas. The active information seems to be the additional information that is added to the search to make it more efficient. For example, the map where the treasure is. And my guess is that the amount of this information plus the new search information equals or exceeds the information required for the blind search. If that is not it, then I would appreciate someone providing input on it.jerry_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

@ Jerry, I hope Mr. M. takes your (sound) advice. It may be better received coming from an ID proponent. It could save us all developing scroll finger syndrome. :) You say:
Your discussion of active information immediately did away with any confusion of it with meaningful information which was a potential hijack of the thread.
I have to say this is not true, for me, at least. The introduction of "meaningful information" was an attempt to clarify what is meant by "active information" and how it might be quantified. Perhaps Dr. Dembski will weigh in with a clarification of what he and Dr. Marks mean by the term.Alan Fox_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Nested hierarchies and common descent are not topics of this thread.jerry_{May 4, 2009
May
05
May
4
04
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply