Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Information: Why the Darwinian Mechanism is Dead Except as an Explanation of the Trivial

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When Darwin proposed his hypothesis in the 19th century it was assumed that the basis of living systems was fundamentally simple. The exact opposite has been shown to be the case in the 20th century. It was thought that chemistry, physics, mechanism, and chance were the foundational principles underlying living systems, but we now know that information and information processing are the essential, underlying ingredients of life. Chemistry, physics, and mechanism represent the medium in which information is processed, interpreted, stored, retrieved, error-detected, and repaired.

As we enter the 21st century it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a third entity that must be added to matter and energy as an explanation for all that exists, and that entity is information.

The Darwinian mechanism is incapable of producing this entity for the same reason that a perpetual-motion machine cannot be built: Fundamental conservation laws cannot be violated. You can’t get something for nothing. Just as you can’t get energy for free, you can’t get information for free.

Comments
Patrick, Without a definition of Information Gill can easily be accused of playing word games as well. I could start making statements about how aeroplanes are unable to fly and you might point out that I was crazy but then I can turn around and say - but the definition of aeroplane I am using is 'a machine that is incapable of flight'. Gill has made a series of statements about the nature of information and has made claims regarding a new 'Fundamental conservation law' that relates to 'Information'. I think Rib is just seeking to establish exactly what the strict definition of Information is in this context. Gil hasn't provided it and without it it is impossible to assess these claims. Given that the definition of Information provided by Shannons Information theory doesn't require 'information' to have any meaningful content (i.e the 'information' contained in a message can be random) It would appear that Gil is not using the word in the Information Theory sense, so I think it is reasonable to ask what other definition is being usedLaminar
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Re #6 According to the esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the “original phase-space volume” constant required such precision that the “Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123” or as has been said another way, “The initial entropy of the universe had to be within one part in 10^10^123!”. Taken literally this is meaningless - odds can't require a precision. But I think it implies this logic: Constant K has to be within a precision of 10^-a squillion to support life. Therefore, the odds of K having a value that supports life are 1 in 10^-a squillion. This just doesn't follow. I got so absorbed with this fallacy I wrote a small essay on it.Mark Frank
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Patrick wrote: "...seriously guys, instead of producing overwhelming evidence or arguing against his statements you’re playing word games. What’s up with that?" Nothing much up with it. It's just amusing to me that Gil would call something that's a serious and deadly medical problem "trivial."Norman Doering
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
At this point I won't put words in Gil's mouth. Whether Gil wants to share the definition of information he's referring to and explain what he means by "trivial" is up to him. But, seriously guys, instead of producing overwhelming evidence or arguing against his statements you're playing word games. What's up with that?Patrick
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Patrick wrote: When asking, "is the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria trivial, or not a Darwinian Mechanism?" you told me to "Look under Moderation Policy on the right hand column." I have looked now. That policy comment did not go so far as to say that the rise of bacterial resistance was "trivial." Gil has gone far enough to call it trivial then?Norman Doering
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Gil, Given your certainty that information is conserved, you must have a precise definition of information in mind. Could you share it with us? EDIT: Delayed moderation (I have a life). Updated timestamp. - Adminribczynski
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Norman #5,
So, is the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria trivial, or not a “Darwinian Mechanism”?
Look under Moderation Policy on the right hand column.Patrick
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
This is a good topic, and well-said by Gildodgen. I think whole debate, when you get down to the nut-cracking is mind vs. matter. Mind equates to intelligence and infromation vs matter, which equates to mindless things coupled with physics and chemistry. The ultimate explanation -- the place we are going -- I think, is inescapable......that when it comes to life, mind and matter are inextricably intertwined, and in fact one in the same. This reality destroys materialism as well as its darwinian step-child. Darwinism has no room for information. It's a theory of things, things which get mindlessly and manipulated by the laws of physics and chemistry. Information is just another way of saying "mind," which darwinists have gone to great lengths to ignore and supress because mind is a contradiction to matter and materialism.van
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Creation vs. Evolution - Very Funny video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjRQ3t8Rue8bornagain77
December 14, 2008
December
12
Dec
14
14
2008
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
jlid asked:
Bornagain77, What’s the Penrose source?
Bornagain77 gave you an excellent online source, but if I remember correctly that is originally from Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind". Outstanding book, even though it was written almost 20 years ago. It destroys the entire argument that evolutionary biology is as advanced as modern physics.angryoldfatman
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Gil, I'm just thinking here. My comment was directed at your observation on the origin of the word information, which seems too trivial to draw any lesson therefrom.RoyK
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Hmm. Are they objective? They seem at best relative -- context-related. But how about another question: is information produced by chance (such as that contained in a random number sequence) a product of mind?RoyK
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
RoyK: ...information is in some sense subjective? Protein and molecular motor assembly instructions are not subjective.GilDodgen
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
RoyKwrote: "... that information doesn’t exist outside of minds, that is, that information is in some sense subjective?" But reality, as Philip K. Dick once said: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." And what is your information about if it's not about that external reality?Norman Doering
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert N. Lewisbornagain77
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
jlid, R. Penrose Source: The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? by Roger Penrose http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf Excerpt: The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law. and from "God By The Numbers" Christianity Today: Charles Edward White http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html excerpt 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123. This number comes from astronomy. Oxford professor Roger Penrose discusses it in his book The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind. It derives from a formula by Jacob Beckenstein and Stephen Hawking and describes the chances of our universe being created at random. Penrose spoofs this view by picturing God throwing a dart at all the possible space-time continua and hitting the universe we inhabit.bornagain77
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Borne: "semantic biology"? GilDogden: I'm skeptical of the significance of word origins. But couldn't you take it another way: that information doesn't exist outside of minds, that is, that information is in some sense subjective?RoyK
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Bornagain77, What's the Penrose source?jlid
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Bio-informatics, semantic biology, systems biology... These are all sounding the death knell of Darwinism.Borne
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
The origin of the word information is interesting: Origin: 1350 - 1400; ME: instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind < ML, L: idea, conception. See INFORM, -ATION In other words, information is something that comes from a mind.GilDodgen
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert N. Lewis My father named me after Gilbert Newton Lewis, with whom my dad worked.GilDodgen
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
According to the esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the “original phase-space volume” constant required such precision that the “Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123” or as has been said another way, "The initial entropy of the universe had to be within one part in 10^10^123!". If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, EVEN IF a number were written down on each atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 atomic particles in it. This number, by far, is the most "eye-opening" number to come out of Big Bang cosmology and describes the amount of "order" in the initial universe. (Thus Information is tied to "order" in some way) Entropy, to some unknown degree, is related to the definition of Information. And as such the initial information in the universe is found to be greatest, whereas Entropy is lowest, with a trade off ever since, save for "special events of "optimal information implementation". The connection between thermodynamic entropy and information http://lcni.uoregon.edu/~mark/Stat_mech/thermodynamic_entropy_and_information.html "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert N. Lewis As well Anton Zeilinger finds information to be foundational to reality: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word."bornagain77
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Evolution Vs. Information http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=33d36928f7a13f9455c7 Conservation Of Information http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=08979112b6474524fbf3 Here is a neat Christmas video you may like Gil: We Three Kings - John Tesh - Italy http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=5b7af9271d5b2ac49da4bornagain77
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
In GilDodgen's title we are told that the "Darwinian Mechanism" is Dead Except as an Explanation of the Trivial. So, is the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria trivial, or not a "Darwinian Mechanism"?Norman Doering
December 13, 2008
December
12
Dec
13
13
2008
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
One has to be careful how information is defined. I am certainly no expert and know nothing about what is called information theory. But a rock is complex and its organization when described in terms of basic molecules and structure, however chaotic, is information. But it is not FCSI or functional complex specified information. No where in nature except in life is there what we call FCSI. And no process that we have observed seems to be able to add any significant new FCSI to any organism which possesses it. This is what the whole debate is about.jerry
December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
The information problem was precisely the topic of Stephen Meyer's paper, the one that got Sternberg in deep trouble for publishing. So it seems that even non-IDers wouldn't have to admit the question as science. Instead it is a provocation justifying an inquisition. This is because any conservation of information principle is a clear violation of the separation of church and state!Matteo
December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
This seems like an area where even non-IDers would have to admit that it is science. Is there a conservation principle for information. This would have to be some kind of super principle of entropy, because it would share many of the same characteristics. 1. What is a rigorous definition of information. 2. How is it conserved. 3. When are the conservation theorems allowed to be violated if at all? The physics of information creation, propagation and destruction would be very interesting.JDH
December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply