Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Conservation of Information — The Idea

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

William Dembski writes:

I am reviewing Jason Rosenhouse’s new book, The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism (Cambridge University Press), serially. For the full series so far, go here.

Rosenhouse devotes a section of his book (sec. 6.10) to conservation of information, and prefaces it with a section on artificial life (sec. 6.9). These sections betray such ignorance and confusion that it’s best to clean the slate. I’ll therefore highlight some of the key problems with Rosenhouse’s exposition, but focus mainly on providing a brief history and summary of conservation of information, along with references to the literature, so that readers can determine for themselves who’s blowing smoke and who’s got the beef.

The importance of “conservation of information” can’t be overstated. The inability of nature to ratchet up information by any natural process in the universe is a hardwired property of the way the universe works.

Blowing Smoke

Rosenhouse’s incomprehension of conservation of information becomes evident in his run-up to it with artificial life. Anyone who has understood conservation of information recognizes that artificial life is a fool’s errand. 

The term artificial life has been around since the late 1980s, when Christopher Langton, working out of the Santa Fe Institute, promoted it and edited a conference proceedings on the topic. I was working in chaos theory at the time. I followed the Santa Fe Institute’s research in that area, and thus as a side benefit (if it may be called that) witnessed first-hand the initial wave of enthusiasm over artificial life. 

Artificial life is computer simulations that produce life-like virtual things, often via a form of digital evolution that mimics selection, variation, and heredity. The field has had its ups and downs over the years, initially generating a lot of enthusiasm, then losing it as people started to ask “What’s this got to do with actual biology?”, after which people forgot these nagging concerns, whereupon a new generation of researchers got excited about it, and so on to repeat the cycle. Rosenhouse, it seems, represents the latest wave of enthusiasm. As he writes: “[Artificial life experiments] are not so much simulations of evolution as they are instances of it. In observing such an experiment you are watching actual evolution take place, albeit in an environment in which the researchers control all the variables.” (p. 209) 

Smuggled Information

Conservation of information, as developed by my colleagues and me, arose in reaction to such artificial life simulations. We found, as we analyzed them (see here for several analyses that we did of specific artificial life programs such as Avida, which Rosenhouse lauds), that the information that researchers claimed to get out of these programs was never invented from scratch and never amounted to any genuine increase in information, but rather always reflected information that was inputted by the researcher, often without the researcher’s awareness. The information was therefore smuggled in rather than created by the algorithm.

Displacing Information

Darwinists are in the business of displacing information. Yet when they do, they typically act all innocent and pretend that they have fully accounted for all the information in question. Moreover, they gaslight anyone who suggests that biological evolution faces an information problem. Information follows precise accounting principles, so it cannot magically materialize in the way that Darwinists desire.

What my colleagues and I at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab found is that, apart from intelligent causation, attempts to explain information do nothing to alleviate, and may actually intensify, the problem of explaining the information’s origin. It’s like filling one hole by digging another, but where the newly dug hole is at least as deep and wide as the first one (often more so). The only exception is one pointed out by Douglas Robertson, writing for the Santa Fe Institute journal Complexity back in 1999: the creation of new information is an act of free will by intelligence. That’s consistent with intelligent design. But that’s a no-go for Darwinists.

Evolution News

Comments
While researching this site for comments about just what naturalized Evolution is, I came across what may be the origin of the name for this site. How did Uncommondescent get its name. Did Dembski watch "Miracle?" See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD6Vnynjcrc The whole video is instructive if one knows the story but one can shorten it by watching this short video starting at 1:50. Highly recommend the movie, "Miracle" from which this video comes.jerry
July 13, 2022
July
07
Jul
13
13
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Jerry @119, Thanks for spelling it out. Susumu Ohno himself suggested this line of investigation, but with a historical spin in which "junk" DNA contained the vestiges of evolutionary processes. Perry Marshall in his book, Evolution 2.0, asserted that whole genome duplication/hybridization (sks Ohno's 2R hypothesis) as well as the other evolutionary mechanisms to a lesser extent serve as an evolutionary scratchpad associated with punctuated equilibrium, which is far more efficient than random mutation through copying errors. How about my last question regarding peanuts and M&Ms? -QQuerius
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
I looked at #61 as you suggested and I didn’t see any reference to an experiment that “are research projects that would seal the doom of naturalized Evolution for good and they won’t do those.
I assumed that everyone here understood how naturalized evolution is supposed to work. But that is apparently not true. Everything comes down to protein formation, or the gene sequences that lead to new proteins. Gould realized this which is why he proposed punctuated equilibrium. After reading some recent articles on punctuated equilibrium, it became obvious no one here understands it. Neither did I till Allen MacNeill pointed to Jurgen Brosius as the key to understanding naturalized evolution. He was given the honor of eulogizing Gould in a journal article/book published in 2007 in Paleobiology. Essentially punctuated equilibrium solves the protein issue by claiming that non-coding DNA mutates away over the millennia until a protein sequence emerges and is exapted to produce a new characteristic which suddenly appears. I assume you read my question to Ann Gauger and her response. She said two things, it would be very time consuming to verify that this process didn’t happen and that some of it was already being done with plants. I don’t know where you got the idea of an experiment for something that happened millions of years ago. It would require examination of the genomes of related species to see how they differ genetically. But most should contain similar but non coding sequences to verify how the proteins that exist in one species never actually formed in these related species. The absence of these sequences would destroy both punctuated equilibrium and Darwinian processes. If they exist, then ID would have to reconsider all it calculations that show such progressions couldn’t possibly happen. ID predicts these sequences don’t exist. Punctuated equilibrium/Darwinian processes predicts these sequences must exist. This is a simplified description of what could to be done to solve once and for all whether proteins can form naturally. The processes described by the evolutionary biologists must leave a trail to the actual protein formation. Aside: the concept of common descent could be verified in a similar way. Genomes contain all sorts of sequences that are non coding from millions of years ago. These sequences/close approximations should be in all the species in the same branch. If they are not then that would indicate lack of common descent. I’ve seen zero of this type of analysis anywhere but someone who was an evolutionary biologist referred to it 15 years ago on this site.jerry
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Jerry @97, Again, how does “the nature and type of genome variation” (as you stated it) provide you with certainty that “some non-coding DNA have other functions but certainly not all of it”? Also, I looked at #61 as you suggested and I didn’t see any reference to an experiment that “are research projects that would seal the doom of naturalized Evolution for good and they won’t do those.” Could you please humor me and be specific?
Querius: Let’s say that at a party, you’re blindfolded and asked to guess whether a peanut or an M&M was just picked out at random from a large bowl by someone, also blindfolded. You’re to try to guess correctly whether it’s a peanut or an M&M. For the first one, you guess “peanut” but it’s an M&M. The same happens for the next one and the next. How many wrong answers would it take before you started guessing M&M?
Would you humor me with your answer, so I can make my point regarding ID? Thanks. -QQuerius
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
JVL:
How does that reconcile with your view that organisms are designed to evolve?
Extant organisms aren't those organisms, though. And evolution is just a change in allele frequency over time. Nylonase is a good example of it, though.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
LCD: Haha, mathematics didn’t help you too much to understand what code /symbol / sign/ genetic language means . Very strange . Um, we weren't talking about codes though were we? That’s why you ask for evidence for ID when cell is full of different interconnected codes that are not produced by universal laws. But I wasn't asking for that at this particular moment was I? So if you “don’t understand”(play stupid) what a code is please don’t talk about maths you make mathematicians to look bad. You lost all your credibility in sign-symbol-code debates. I can't even have a coherent conversation with you, you're replies are disjointed within themselves and between themselves. If you want to have a discussion about a particular subject and how it relates to the development of life on earth then I'm happy to do that. If you're just going to keep changing the subject and bouncing all over the place then reasoned discussion is impossible. So, pick a topic and stick with it or stop. It's up to you.JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Alan Fox, the equivocating hypocrite. Beyond parody, indeed.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Blimey. Beyond parody.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
If you don’t even understand the basics then I can’t explain to you why you’re wrong.
Haha, mathematics didn't help you too much to understand what code /symbol / sign/ genetic language means . Very strange . That's why you ask for evidence for ID when cell is full of different interconnected codes that are not produced by universal laws. So if you "don't understand"(play stupid) what a code is please don't talk about maths you make mathematicians to look bad. You lost all your credibility in sign-symbol-code debates.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
LCD: The idea is there is no link between your coin/brownian movement “randomness” and a mutation “randomness”. I was trying to explain how you determine if something is random. I was not trying to draw a comparison between those two different phenomena. Barbara McClintok used few hundreds corn plants(DNA:2 billion) and majority reacted in the same way by repairing damaged DNA. For your randomness joke to be true Barbara should have been grown 10^1000000000 maize plants to obtain the result she obtained with few hundreds. Think ,doesn’t hurt. ? Something you borrowed, rather badly in fact, from that video you linked to. Look, it's clear you yourself don't understand the mathematics behind many of these things. We could keep trying to explain them to you and you keep denying well established mathematics and biology . . . or, we just let it go 'cause it's clear you're not quite connecting for whatever reason. If you don't even understand the basics then I can't explain to you why you're wrong.JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Well, you’ve entirely missed the point
The idea is there is no link between your coin/brownian movement "randomness" and a mutation "randomness". Barbara McClintok used few hundreds corn plants(DNA:2 billion) and majority reacted in the same way by repairing damaged DNA. For your randomness joke to be true Barbara should have been grown 10^1000000000 maize plants to obtain the result she obtained with few hundreds. Think ,doesn't hurt. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
LCD: Out of the frying pan into the fire. Did you discard the coins so quickly? Now that you brought “brownian motion” into discussion please explain why in the world would you think that is a similarity between a molecule moving in a solution and mutations happening in a cell ? I was trying to find a random process that you would accept as being random since you decided you didn't like the coin model. I repost the video of Perry Marshall explaining the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY0d5HTLIBk&t=2120s How do you know Perry Marshall got it right? I think I'll stick with my own personal education and the opinion of people working in the field. You don't really seem to understand the mathematics so I'm not sure I will take your recommendation seriously. In a vial is nothing random because the movement is controlled exclusively by the chemistry laws If you zoom out enough at the level of molecules there is nothing random everything is very deterministic . In the cell there is nothing like “brownian movement” because cell itself is a stochastic control system that reacts intelligently to internal/external noise with the purpose to mantain the homeostasis constant even when the conditions change. There is no genetic code /no repair mechanisms/no homeostasis in a vial . Right. Wondering if it's time to back away slowly and avoid eye contact. In conclusion nothing random in the cell, where is a code there is nothing let to the mercy of chance. Chance is not a cause, do not create genes, cybernetic systems , feedback loops,etc… chance is a noise that cell fight against. Well, you've entirely missed the point of my examples and you've introduced weird side issues which have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please explain to us how brownian is the mechanism of repairing DNA , RNA. ? What about membrane selectivity a lot of brownian motion over there ? What is brownian about reproduction system . Magical thinking. No one said brownian motion had anything to do with any of those things. You're really embarrassing yourself now. Just saying.JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Alan Fox Goodness me. Brownian motion is universal; more universal than gravity
Really? Please explain to us how brownian is the mechanism of repairing DNA , RNA. :lol: What about membrane selectivity a lot of brownian motion over there ? What is brownian about reproduction system . Magical thinking.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Goodness me. Brownian motion is universal; more universal than gravity. Happens everywhere: in cells, in test tubes, outer space. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motionAlan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Uh huh. Shall we use Brownian motion instead? If you observe a molecule moving apparently randomly in a solution what test would you use to determine if it really was random?
:lol: Out of the frying pan into the fire. Did you discard the coins so quickly? Now that you brought "brownian motion" into discussion please explain why in the world would you think that is a similarity between a molecule moving in a solution and mutations happening in a cell ? :) Your example with coin and then with brownian motion confirm what I said : you confound random with stochastic I repost the video of Perry Marshall explaining the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY0d5HTLIBk&t=2120s In a vial is nothing random because the movement is controlled exclusively by the chemistry laws If you zoom out enough at the level of molecules there is nothing random everything is very deterministic . In the cell there is nothing like "brownian movement" because cell itself is a stochastic control system that reacts intelligently to internal/external noise with the purpose to mantain the homeostasis constant even when the conditions change. There is no genetic code /no repair mechanisms/no homeostasis in a vial . In conclusion nothing random in the cell, where is a code there is nothing let to the mercy of chance. Chance is not a cause, do not create genes, cybernetic systems , feedback loops,etc... chance is a noise that cell fight against.Lieutenant Commander Data
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Thanks, Jerry, for reiterating my point.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
This much ado about nothing. ID for years has not said much about non-coding DNA or that part of it sometimes called junk DNA. Yes, certain individual will expound on it but the reality is that some DNA has no function, some DNA was thought to have no function but ended up with function. So what else is new but to argue over nonsense which any discussion of the term "junk DNA" generally is.jerry
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
For example, as new discoveries emerge regarding the functions of “junk” DNA, it becomes increasingly obvious that the initial presumption of “junk” was premature.
Indeed, ID proponents have had a lot of fun equivocating over what constitutes 'junk' DNA. The fact is that there is junk DNA, known to be parasitic, ERVs etc, DNA previously thought non-functional and later found to have function, the possibility of random mutations fortuitously happening in a section of junk that can produce new function and still, I'm sure, DNA sequences where it is undecided. The consensus definition of junk DNA among biologists is DNA that has no function useful to its host organism. The thing that changes is not the definition but whether a section of DNA qualifies.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
ET: And no one can predict what any given designer will design next. That isn’t how it works. Okay. So, you think it's not possible to say when new species will form, when new 'body plans' will be seen, etc? I realise you're not necessarily including minor adaptations or changes arising from 'degradations' in a genome. So if we took a species of . . . turtle say and put populations of those on different tropical islands you would expect some minor changes but not a species split? How does that reconcile with your view that organisms are designed to evolve? Meaning: is there already a . . . plan or a scheme permeating cells which dictates where they are heading? If we could learn to read that scheme could we then predict when speciation would occur? OR is the scheme being modified and changed on occasion?JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
JVL
Although stochasticity and randomness are distinct in that the former refers to a modeling approach and the latter refers to phenomena themselves, these two terms are often used synonymously.
Handy to know. I used to think 'stochastic' was just a snobby way to say 'random'.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
JVL, you do not get to tell me what I think. I say that only intelligent design can explain biological development- ie meiosis and all of what is required for the processes involved in developmental biology. And no one can predict what any given designer will design next. That isn't how it works. ID predicts what we will observe when trying to determine the root cause of the effect we are investigating.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
ET: That doesn’t have anything to do with ID. You are clueless. Look, you think design influenced biological development and, I'm pretty sure, you think that design still does influence biological development. So, given that, I was just wondering if anyone could make a biological development prediction.JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Jerry: But, yet it was pointed out to you twice yesterday and you refused to address it. It's my view that what you provided was not addressing the same thing as my original questions. But I am interested in what you posted and why, say, The Discovery Institute (which has a research branch) hasn't followed up on it. I can't imagine it would cost that much.JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Only the willfully ignorant say that mutations are random with respect to fitness. Evolutionary biologists say that mutations are random as in accidents, errors or mistakes. Period. Mutations are not planned. They are happenstance occurrences. Period.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
How did you come to the certainty of that conclusion?
The nature and type of genome variation.
Do you have any specifically in mind?
Yes, pointed out to JVL more than once and you commented on one of the comments about it. See #61jerry
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
JVL:
I just don’t think anyone has actually presented a testable ID prediction regarding any kind of biological development.
That doesn't have anything to do with ID. You are clueless. You have to be the biggest loser, ever. You don't have a clue, at all. You don't understand science and biology is way above your head.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
But I’m happy to stop asking since no one can come up with such things
But, yet it was pointed out to you twice yesterday and you refused to address it. You acknowledged it was pointed out to you. As I said nearly all your comments are disingenuous.jerry
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
EDTA: You never incorporate what we say, and then try to one-up us with new arguments. Just the same old drums being beat. This is a repeated and well-established pattern. I just don't think anyone has actually presented a testable ID prediction regarding any kind of biological development. Like, for example: when a new species will arise, when certain beneficial mutations will occur, when will some genomes balloon up so as to be magnitudes larger than similar lifeforms, etc. But I'm happy to stop asking since no one can come up with such things. Pity. But at least I got a lot of practice at replying to frustrating messages in a controlled manner. That was good for me, and I thank you for it. There's a little bit of goodness in everything!JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
LCD: Nonsense. This example doesn’t help you .There is nothing random in your example with coins. It’s about slightly different angles/forces applied on coins. If you have an enough sensible measure system you can say with 100% certainty what will be :head or tail. Uh huh. Shall we use Brownian motion instead? If you observe a molecule moving apparently randomly in a solution what test would you use to determine if it really was random? About “mutations are random with respect to fitness” it’s obvious that you confound random with stochastic : Really? Let's have a look shall we. From Wikipedia:
Stochastic (from Greek ?????? (stókhos) 'aim, guess') refers to the property of being well described by a random probability distribution. Although stochasticity and randomness are distinct in that the former refers to a modeling approach and the latter refers to phenomena themselves, these two terms are often used synonymously. Furthermore, in probability theory, the formal concept of a stochastic process is also referred to as a random process. Stochasticity is used in many different fields, including the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, ecology, neuroscience, and physics, as well as technology and engineering fields such as image processing, signal processing, information theory, computer science, cryptography, and telecommunications. It is also used in finance, due to seemingly random changes in financial markets as well as in medicine, linguistics, music, media, colour theory, botany, manufacturing, and geomorphology. Stochastic modeling is also used in social science.
One of the simplest continuous-time stochastic processes is Brownian motion. This was first observed by botanist Robert Brown while looking through a microscope at pollen grains in water.
The Monte Carlo method is a stochastic method popularized by physics researchers Stanis?aw Ulam, Enrico Fermi, John von Neumann, and Nicholas Metropolis.[33] The use of randomness and the repetitive nature of the process are analogous to the activities conducted at a casino. Methods of simulation and statistical sampling generally did the opposite: using simulation to test a previously understood deterministic problem. Though examples of an "inverted" approach do exist historically, they were not considered a general method until the popularity of the Monte Carlo method spread. Perhaps the most famous early use was by Enrico Fermi in 1930, when he used a random method to calculate the properties of the newly discovered neutron. Monte Carlo methods were central to the simulations required for the Manhattan Project, though they were severely limited by the computational tools of the time. Therefore, it was only after electronic computers were first built (from 1945 on) that Monte Carlo methods began to be studied in depth. In the 1950s they were used at Los Alamos for early work relating to the development of the hydrogen bomb, and became popularized in the fields of physics, physical chemistry, and operations research. The RAND Corporation and the U.S. Air Force were two of the major organizations responsible for funding and disseminating information on Monte Carlo methods during this time, and they began to find a wide application in many different fields. Uses of Monte Carlo methods require large amounts of random numbers, and it was their use that spurred the development of pseudorandom number generators, which were far quicker to use than the tables of random numbers which had been previously used for statistical sampling.
Stochastic resonance: In biological systems, introducing stochastic "noise" has been found to help improve the signal strength of the internal feedback loops for balance and other vestibular communication. It has been found to help diabetic and stroke patients with balance control. Many biochemical events also lend themselves to stochastic analysis. Gene expression, for example, has a stochastic component through the molecular collisions—as during binding and unbinding of RNA polymerase to a gene promoter—via the solution's Brownian motion.
JVL
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
Jerry @90,
But there are research projects that would seal the doom of naturalized Evolution for good and they won’t do those.
Do you have any specifically in mind? -QQuerius
July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply