Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
Dembski and Marks write,
Theistic evolutionists attempt to make room for God within this Darwinian scheme by claiming that God created the universe so that Darwinian processes would produce living forms. Accordingly, God brings about the natural forces that produce living things but makes sure not to interfere with those forces once they are in operation. Though logically possible, theistic evolution offers no compelling reason for thinking that nature is a divine creation.
It seems that Dembski has confused theistic evolution with deism, which strikes me as odd since Dembski has a theology PhD (I think). Also, the last line above doesn’t seem correct - even deism, and even more so theistic evolution, would consider nature a divine creation. Theistic evolution posits that God is present in all events - not in an “interfering” way, but rather as an active participant. Christians don’t doubt that God is subtly guiding their lives towards the ends that God desires, so I don’t see why they would doubt that God could likewise guide evolution. I’m pretty sure this is not the thread on which to discuss this, and it may not relate to Dembski’s thesis because this participation by God could include a constant imparting, or changing, of information. But the paragraph quoted above seems to me to both mischaracterize and unreasonably dismiss theistic evolution as a religious perspective that can accept evolutionary science.hazel
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
William at 12 I've never quite grasped this parallel between information and matter-energy conservation. A disordered sequence of bits, perhaps generated by a coin, is packed with "surprisal" value and therefore packed with information for the uninitiated observer. But then let's say the observer suddenly learns that the sequence is in actual fact generated by a simple chaotic algorithm that can be expressed in a few bits; the burden of information initially apparent to the observer then seems to have disappeared into nothingness. Conversely if the observer forgets all about the algorithm the information jumps back out of nothing. The problem here seems to lie in the fact that information as a quantity binds together both observer and observed into one system - the observer becomes a variable in the system and this produces results that confound attempts to find strict analogies between physical quantities like mass-energy and quasi-objective quantities like information. However I think this is really only a technical quibble as I'm sure the real moral behind the paper is that the improbability of life has to be matched either by a logical hiatus to be found either in evolution itself or directly in living structures in the form of IC. But I'll leave final judgment until I've read the paper.Timothy V Reeves
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Thank you, Dr. Dembski, for offering us a substantial topic to discuss! Where, then, does the LCI Regress end? In fact, it may not end, implying that the information that enables an alternative search to succeed in locating T was present always. Alternatively, it may end because an external information source added the information needed to locate T. One option suggests front-loading of information, the other direct input. Both options evoke intelligent design. However, the authors criticize both possibilities earlier. Theistic evolutionists attempt to make room for God within this Darwinian scheme by claiming that God created the universe so that Darwinian processes would produce living forms. Accordingly, God brings about the natural forces that produce living things but makes sure not to interfere with those forces once they are in operation. Though logically possible, theistic evolution offers no compelling reason for thinking that nature is a divine creation. And earlier There’s no sense in which human beings or any other multi-celled organisms are latent in single-celled organisms, much less in nonliving chemicals. I found the citation of MESA somewhat amusing. Why should the existence of a program be more important than the results obtained with the program? If you are going to put MESA up against AVIDA you should be able to point to some results. The ISCID.org page does not list any results. In any case, MESA was meant to counter WEASEL, not AVIDA, so the authors are vastly ovestating its relative importance. As a mathematical result, I look forward to how the authors will apply it in the controlled environment of computational evolutionary algorithms. I especially look forward to their reconciliation of their LCI to Holland's Schema Theorem. While Barricelli may be of historical interest, a rigorous discussion properly begins with Holland. I will also be interested to see how the authors complete the research program of creating a true conservation Law. Having shown information cannot be created is it also true that it cannot be destroyed? Here, the authors will have to grapple with results from research into black holes. Ultimately, computational evolution uses resources not yet accounted for by the authors, such as the contingency of one query on previous results (the existence of time), and a source of (pseudo)random numbers. So we are still left with the question of whether the laws of nature (fitness function) plus time, plus heat (randomness) can create local structures of arbitrary complexity at the cost of entropy increases in other parts of the system.Nakashima
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Dr. D you are completely right with regard to politics and the discussion of your paper. Money, btw, is just a container of information. If the information it contains should be found to be inaccurate or unreliable, money will be worthless. It's why it is pointless to try to make everyone a millionaire by printing and distributing $1,000 bills. I will now be a good boy and read the paper.tribune7
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
nullasalus: You quote "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." But you didn't quote the following sentence, which concludes the thought: "Moreover, it shows that this teleology can be measured in precise information-theoretic terms." That's the kicker, and it's why this paper is properly an ID paper rather than a theistic evolution paper.William Dembski
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
I urge people to read the paper before commenting. What in the world are references to Reaganomics and Thatcherism doing in this thread? We (Bob Marks and I) argue that active information obeys an accounting principle. That claim needs to be taken on its own terms. If there's a tight analogy with money, so be it. But there's also a tight analogy, so we argue, with energy -- does anyone on this thread deny that energy obeys strict accounting principles? Anyone here prepared to challenge conservation of energy? If so, you need to contact Al Gore and offer some solutions for global warming.William Dembski
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Thanks very much; this looks very interesting, I'll give it a good look. Mapou says at 11 It seems to me that what this paper is saying is that evolution was designed, and I agree. ...that might be the opinion I'm beginning to form as well.Timothy V Reeves
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
rvb8 - "Again, if LCI follows the strict accounting principles of moneterist ideals, I suggest it is more akin to ideology than to science." You are confusing economic accounting principles with policital economy. Regardless of what you think of Reagan's economic policies, or economic performance under the Reagan administration, or what you label monetarist ideals, it is still true, and must be true, that the total flow of money must sum to zero (outflows = inflows).owendw
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
It seems to me that what this paper is saying is that evolution was designed, and I agree. Please correct my interpretation if it's wrong.Mapou
May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT
What I'm shocked at is, no one seems to be reacting to a key quote in this post. 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. I suppose it wouldn't be news to regulars here, but here we have Prof. Dembski arguing in a paper that, even if "Darwinian Evolution" is true (in fact, it seems to be assumed it is true), the facts on the ground indicate it's teleological. I'm sure many people would question such a view. But considering how often ID is billed as evolution-denying, isn't this an eye-opener?nullasalus
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
trib, I was born in 1966, lived through the nightmare of Reagonomics, and Thatcherism, and have lived to see the obvious (to me at least) consequences. I witnessed Reagan's disgrace in dealing with terrorist Iran, and his disgrace in supporting white South Africa. Again, if LCI follows the strict accounting principles of moneterist ideals, I suggest it is more akin to ideology than to science. I couldn't follow your link, sorry.rvb8
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
Critter @1:
Was this published in a peer reviewed journal?
I personally hope not. Who needs the approval of a bunch of politically correct groupies? We don't need groups with hidden agendas to tell us that our stuff is good. Peer review, to me, is synonymous with '@rse review'. Sorry. I just don't like mainstream science too much. The entire world should be our peers. If your stuff is good, it will survive and win out in the end. If not, it will die. How's that for a simple theory of evolution?Mapou
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Aaah, like Bernie Maddoff Not unless you are saying Bernie Maddoff is synonymous with money. There certainly was accounting with regard to the money along with tragic consequences for many. or more egregiously Reagan’s “supply side” fiasco. You have to have been born after 1988. Hint: don't trust your teachers, and ponder this.tribune7
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
'..information is a commodity,that,like money obeys strict accounting principles.' Aaah, like Bernie Maddoff, or the wise guru, Allen Greenspan, or more egregiously Reagan's "supply side" fiasco. If LCI follows these "strict accounting principles" I'd more likely come down on the side of random mutation, and selection for fitness, if you don't mind. Rob.rvb8
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Thank you Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks for formalizing what we understand intuitively. Unfortunately, I don't think the fundamentalists across the aisle will concede so easily. It will be interesting to see how they respond (no Weaseling, please). Please do keep 'racheting' up the rigorous reseach you are doing. ID is humbly :) 'letting the dogs out on scientific dogmatism'.Oramus
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Looks like a book chapter. There are, however, two articles mentioned in the end notes. The prospective journals are blacked out, so it is unknown as to whether they will be peer reviewed.theface
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Was this published in a peer reviewed journal?critter
May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply