Intelligent Design Uncensored hot off the press

_{William Dembski

May 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

My newest book, Intelligent Design Uncensored, co-authored with Jonathan Witt, is now available. You can purchase it here at Amazon.com. It provides a nice overview of the scientific issues at stake but then also deals with the cultural spillover as it relates to both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

Comments

warehuff, in 34 you continue to expound on the mistakes you’ve already made. You say:
Evolution actually generates new information and it does it by changing or adding to whatever information it already has.
Your position simply takes for granted what must be explained. The typical view of evolution is that random errors occur in the replication of information, which is then passed on to the next generation. In an evolutionary scenario, information must exist, then it must be replicated, then it must be transferred, then it must be translated, then it must be followed. Evolution therefore requires an entire system of coordinated parts working in unison by some means of control. There is no doubt that the control is caused by information itself. So for evolution to even exist there must already be a sophisticated information processing system in place. You may then say that chemical evolution could have preceded evolution by means of information and copying errors. To which I say fine, you’ve done no more than restate your belief that chemicals can somehow create an abstraction of themselves in order to be replicated and to have that abstraction transferred to their offspring. But you certainly haven’t provided any conceptual idea as to how that abstraction came to be. Nor have you shown anything of the organization and control which would be required prior to the onset of information. You then say:
For example, the first living thing was probably a small self-reproducing molecule. If you have a self-reproducing molecule, the information is in the layout of the molecule that allows it to reproduce itself.
This is just not true. Like before, you simply assume what must be explained. When you say that “the information is in the layout of the molecule” you are making a serous category error. The layout in is the layout, but until that layout becomes abstracted and placed into a medium, then no information exist. This is exactly what I said to you earlier, I am not placing any prior restrictions on you to explain when in the process such information came to be (you’ll have to make it plausible in whatever case you care to present). But if you are going to claim that chemicals can create an abstraction of themselves, then it is a requirement for you to explain how it happened.Upright BiPed_{May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

I see the conversation has moved well on, but I’d like to go back and address warehuff at 33 and 34, then racingiron at 35. Sorry for the delay. Warehuff, in 33 you addressed the three questions I originally asked of Truism when he took the indefensible position that ID proponents were denying the truth. The first of those questions was if he (or anyone else) had any evidence that evolution was capable of the onset of information processing inside the cell. Your answer to this was:
I don’t think anybody can answer the first question. It would require knowledge of the pre-cellular and very early cellular history of life and we don’t have any detailed fossil remains from that era to examine. If we did, and it was accomplished by natural means, then the answer would be obvious.
This of course raises an immediate question. It is constantly argued that science must operate (without any exceptions) as if we already know it happened by purely unguided means. So, on what grounds do we operate as if we know for certain it happened by non-guided means, if as you suggest, we have no idea how it happened at all? You may counter this claim by providing references to OOL researchers (or materialist such as yourself) who allow for a possible act of agency in the origin of living organisms. But please bear in mind; this question is not primarily about what someone claims are the modern arbitrary rules of science. Nor is it about having an agenda to alter those rules; it’s truly about a search for explanations that are congruent with what we an actually observe in nature. And since we are talking about something we cannot test by experiment, it would seem that one thing (rational congruent answers) must logically take precedence over the other (arbitrary and unnecessary rules). And while I agree that it is unknown how it happened (and that we have no fossil records to study) this does not mean we have nothing to work with. We have life as we find it operating today. Clearly, following the elucidation of the genetic code we know life operates by means of encoded algorithmic information. If you read those who were on the forefront of biological discovery, it is clear that many see information as a primary distinction between simple inanimate matter and living system. It is hard to argue otherwise. So we are left again with the question I originally posed. And your answer is “no” we do not have any evidence that material processes can create the onset of information processing. - - - - - - This leads to the second question, which was about having even a conceptual pathway that would lead to information processing in the cell. I read your answer and frankly was unsurprised. You listed some of the parts of the replication and information transfer system as we find them. You glued your comments together with the implication that this is how it came to be. Obviously that falls well short of a conceptual pathway for what must be explained. Life operates by recorded information. In one of Koonin’s lectures on origins he makes the statement that the RNA scenario has inherent problems and has “offered no convincing scenarios for the origin of efficient replication and translation”. It’s the replication and translation part of this statement I want to focus on. The “replication and translation” that Koonin spoke of must be understood as to what it really is. In any valid OOL scenario, it is not about how to get one biomolecule to become two biomolecules; it’s about the replication of the information needed to create those biomolecules and sustain them within a larger system. It’s about the onset of information processing, which includes the obvious onset of information. If we are going to explain how life as we know came to exist, then we have to explain where information came from -- not that tab A sticks in slot B -- but how the instructions for sticking tab A in slot B came to be instantiated in an encoded semiotic state within a material medium. So, without putting any prior restrictions on you to explain when in the process such information came to be, it is nevertheless a requirement to explain how it came to be. Why? Because that is how we find it today. A code exists. A code is semiotic information which is transmitted through a medium. To explain it, you first must explain its semiotic state. In simple words: at some point in the process, the chemicals had to write it down and pass it along. And there is not a single person on the surface of the planet that has any idea how that came to be. - - - - - - - My final question was “What do we do with the universal knowledge that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself?” This is the question that sends you off the deep end. This stands to reason, for the all the same reasons I stated in asking the question in the first place. I said:
[T]he third question is what a strategist might refer to as a corrective. Its intent is to cause you to attack yourself by checking your position. The narrative goes something like this: if we cannot provide the evidence in question one, and we cannot even muster a pathway to an answer in question two, then can we (at the very least) recognize that we are lying to ourselves in question three?
Your answer immediately stumbles into an illogical morass. You begin by asking a counter question “What ‘universal knowledge’ are you talking about here? Can you give us some empirical evidence that it’s impossible? What the heck? 1) You want me to prove something is impossible? 2) Its not for me to disprove, it’s for materialist who insist it is true to back up their claims. If men and women are to be railed out of science and have their names permanently disparaged for considering an alternative; if materialist are willing to form legal teams to ensure their assumptions are never questioned, if national science associations are to be formed in order to enforce the majority rule – then perhaps it is up to them to support their scientific claims with a little bit of scientific evidence. No? Is that not a reasonable request? 3) Universal experience? Go outside and pick up the first rock you find. Hold it out away from your body and let go of it. It will drop to the ground. It has dropped to the ground for everyone who has ever done it. It will drop to the ground for anyone who ever does it. That is our universal experience with dropping rocks. There has never been an exception. It is our universal experience with abstractions of reality as well. It’s also our universal experience with codes and algorithms. They all require an agent, and they always have. They do not come about by inanimate matter. You may argue against this by providing an instance where an abstraction, code, or algorithm came into existence without the input of an agent.Upright BiPed_{May 8, 2010
May
05
May
8
08
2010
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

#27 #32 #52 Warehuff and vjtorley on the status of the embryo I am doing a project for my Masters in Science and Society comparing the debate on stem cell research in the UK and the USA. So this is interesting stuff. If you pick up the discussion in a calmer environment than UD I would be interested to participate.Mark Frank_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

PPS: If you're interested, I have extended my analysis of selective hyperskepticism, here, adding among other things a discussion of the warranted, credible truths approach to developing/ critiquing a worldview.kairosfocus_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

PS: This video gives a broader view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fOXt4MrOM&feature=relatedkairosfocus_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: The above is actually astonishing. For, we see where in their desperation, evolutionary materialists have been forced to try to deny the reality of information in cell based life, and in particular to deny the reality of symbolic coded digital information in DNA and as used in protein synthesis and related regulation and coordination. When one has to resort to selectively hyperskeptical denials of plain matters of fact, that is a sign that the inference from such functionally specific, complex digital information and its use in step by step procedures that create the proteins that do so much of the work of the cell, is very solid indeed. So. let us again look at a useful instructional video on that information and how it is used, to refresh our minds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxobgkPEAo&NR=1 And, let us remind ourselves of what Sir Francis Crick had to say so soon as he had identified the core structure of DNA, in that March 1953 letter to his son, as was aleady cited in 39 above, but just as studiously ignored as were the videos and stills already linked:
“Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another).” [Sir Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, for elucidating the nature of DNA; 1953 letter to his son.]
When evolutionary materialists are reduced to trying to deny credible facts, that is a sign that heir dominance of origins science in our day is unravelling. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: "Wonderful! I log in this morning to find not one but three challenges. I am traveling today, so I am all the more excited to return and address all three. I look forward to it." Excellent. I too am looking forward to it. See you after the Mother's Day weekend.warehuff_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Phaedros: If you're talking about a supernatural spirit, then I have no way of knowing when or if it exists. However, since the majority of all fertilized eggs self-abort before birth, I will assume that God, if He exists, has made provision for supernatural spirits, if they exist. But if by "spirit", you mean the normal human mind, then I find out if one exists in the normal way - observation. Fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses show absolutely no signs of a mind that I know of.warehuff_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

vjtorley: Regarding the status of the embryo, you might like to have a look at these articles by Professor David Oderberg, who is pro-life: The Metaphysical Status of the Embryo: Some Arguments Revisited Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: What’s wrong with it? I hope you enjoy the articles. Thank you, I did! The first one isn't too good, but the second is excellent. Although abortion bears strongly on the dualism/monism argument about the mind, it's not really relevant to "Intelligent design uncensored". Do you have a blog where we could discuss this?warehuff_{May 7, 2010
May
05
May
7
07
2010
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @49, Getting my vote to introduce the concept of ID into a curriculum might be possible. It won't happen though if you're not brief and to the point. There are a lot of people here who have worked with 741's, 555's, 7404's, 4000 series CMOS and all sorts of stuff like that. I myself memorized the object code of the RCA 1802 and wrote programs in machine code with arrows showing the targets of jumps instead of labels. I wrote a FAT32 file system in assembler but that doesn't mean that I am right or wrong about God. Your technical experiences are not convincing me that you understand biology. They actually have the opposite effect in that I see you struggling to relate your engineering experiences to biology. If you want my vote, stay on topic and back up what you say in a way that anyone can understand. Anyone who knows their subject well enough can explain it in a very basic manner.Toronto_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

PPS: I should also note that the cell uses three letter 64 state [4^3] codons to translate to a 20-state [generally speaking] protein AA space. That -- as the videos you have plainly not bothered to watch show -- is what ribosomes and tRNA are doing, with the mRNA tape being fed through step by step. The codon table shows how with very carefully optimised redundancy, 64 states are translated into 20 plus a stop. AUG of course does double duty as a start codon. (NB: cf here on just how optimal that code is, relative to other possible codes.)kairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

PS: As one who has designed his fair share of analogue ckts and systems, I assure you that analogue ckts process information, but in an analogue,smoothly varying fashion rather than a digital, discrete one; and they use transdu8ction and amplification technologies to pr4oduce analogous signals tot he ones of interest, which are of course information bearing. [BTW, Shannon's analysis also applies to ANALOGUE channels, and his bits are not directly comparable to digital electronic 0 vs 5 V TTL bits or the like.) Indeed, my favourite way to introduce AM radio to students was by multiplication of sinusoids, then asking how we could do that electronically: one easy way, modulate the power supply of an oscillator. Then, I introduced the concept of the physical vs mathematical operator. On Op Amps, I especially liked the way a diode in the feedback ckt could be used to create a logging amplifier, accurate across several decades. Or how a capacitor in the input or output ckts could give differentiators or integrators; all of which of course was directly relevant to . . . ANALOGUE COMPUTERS. (Guess what sort of components and circuits the patch cords were patching, as I spoke about earlier? [Let's just note that 741 is a very meaningful number to me, and 071 was a real breakthrough when it came along.])kairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Toronto: You clearly did not reckon appropriately with the well known fact that mRNA constitutes a sequentially expressed, digitally coded sequence for proteins, and that the code is defined on 3-letter codons, each letter having four states as possibility, GCAT. In turn that code comes from the DNA, a digital data store. In expression, as the already linked videos will make plain, an initiating METHIONONE AA is positioned through the Ribosome and tRNA, then in succession based on anticodon matching to codons, successive AA's are added to chain the emerging protein, until a stop codon appears. This AA string [A more or less 20-state per element discrete state structure that on folding etc exerts biofunction] is folded, attached to operationalising molecules and possibly clumped with other folded chains to form an active protein. All of this is based on digitally coded fucntionally specific complex information, and the quantum soon exceeds the 500 - 1,000 bit scale that dwarfs the search capacity of the cosmos. You have hung up on the fact that many of our electronic digital computers [for good reason] are based on synchronous sequential technologies, and have missed out the advantages of asynchronous, and intensely parallel processing. Up to thousands of ribosomes are at work in a given cell. Similarly, you have forgotten that the first prototype digital computer -- Babbage -- was a mechanical one, based on gears and cams etc. Similarly, early special purpose computers were largely based on relays etc. Turing's conceptual computer was based on bidirectional punched paper tape and a read/write head. There is no reason to dismiss the use of key-lock fitting molecules and polymer chaining to implement a discrete state information storing and step by step processing device; i.e. as we see in the cell. In case you missed the point on what a digital -- as opposed to analogue [which is what a vinyl record per RIAA standards, is; and I am old enough that we defined digital and analogue processing and actually used patched analogue computers way back when . . . ] -- computer is, a handy basic definition will help address the selective hyperskepticism and strawman tactics you are using:
a computer is a programmable machine. This means it can execute a programmed list of instructions and respond to new instructions that it is given.
In short, lawyer tactics are letting you down. In any case, we don't need to debate definitions of computers and the like. We know codes are in use and we can easily enough see the functionally specific complex -- and here, digital [onlookers observe how the already linked codon table is tellingly missing from T's remarks, which is plainly discrete state [= digital] and symbolic, not an analogue smoothly varying signal] -- information required to carry out the core life functions of a cell. That is enough to point to design as the most credible source of the cell. Also, even were the information in the cell analoguye, that would still constitute information that is functional and specific. Who, on seeing a vinyl disc phonograph in action, would credibly infer that its best explanation is undirected mechanical forces of nature acting on matter in chance initial conditions? And, indeed, by making an exploded diagram and evaluating the bit depth required for adequate function [i.e. the precision of the parts and their exactitude of assembly], we could soon enough work out a nodes and arcs network diagram and translate this into a bit value estimate for the functional information in the phono record and playback machine. The number would easily exceed 1,000 bits. So, even the attempted comparison to a vinyl record is suspect. In addition to willfully ignoring the significance of digitally stored four-state info in cells, and the step by step sequences and machines that put that info to work. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @42,
Toronto: You clearly do not know the difference between analogy and instantiation.
Here is an analogy. The cell is like a vinyl record. If you put a needle onto a vinyl record, you will hear music without even using an amplifier. A CD with an MP3 encoded song will not play without interpreting the coded song with a processor. You are claiming the cell contains coded information while we can clearly see that a cell functions without any processing just like a vinyl record plays without processing. The vinyl record is the song, the cell is life. Your analogy implies that the cell is more like an MP3, in other words an encoded version of life not an actual instance of one. Just like the vinyl record however, the cell plays it's song without any sequential processing or decoding. If your claim is valid, that there is sequential processing going on, you should be able to show it to me. This is your claim, please back it up.Toronto_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

P5S: another nice description of the sequence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bLEDd-PSTQ&NR=1kairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

P4s: A protein chaining step by step sequence in action, with description: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5vH4Q_tAkY&feature=relatedkairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

PPS: DNA replication -- the master tape in the von Neumann replicator -- here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teV62zrm2P0&feature=related PPPS: Definition of an algorithm, courtesy Am HD:
A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
kairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

PS: Video with audio description, and an inside RNA view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxobgkPEAo&NR=1kairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Toronto: You clearly do not know the difference between analogy and instantiation. Look at the video and the diagrams just linked, next, look at the mRNA transcription process and then compare the code that drives the sequence of AAs in a protein, then come back to us. (And BTW, synchronous sequential systems are not the only kind of statal digital/discrete state system, there are asynchronous sequential systems, and asynchronicity is far more robust as it does not have a single failure point. [I once remember having to work out how to "pull" crystal clocks to achieve quasi-synchronisation of a distributed digital system. Ended up using varicaps to tweak oscillators, and coordinating with headers on UART data bursts.]) De Nile is a river in Egypt. G'day GEM of TKI.kairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @39,
In short, we are looking at algorithmic functional information, based on digital states, processed as data structures using step by step procedures.
If your analogy of a programmed sequential process is to hold, where is your program counter? A better analogy would a model more like a "fuzzy logic/neural net" process. A sequential model is lacking if you can't identify states and steps. Show us a state transition diagram for your model.Toronto_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

PS: Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jml8CFBWcDs&feature=relatedkairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Racing: Why not kindly climb down off your scare quotes -- while we wait for UB -- and address:
"Now we believe that the DNA is a code. That is, the order of bases (the letters) makes one gene different from another gene (just as one page of print is different from another)." [Sir Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, for elucidating the nature of DNA; 1953 letter to his son.]
Then, while you are at it, examine the way a ribosome produces a protein one step at a time, in the context of the chain from DNA to mRNA to Ribosome and tRNA's, in light of the requisites of a von Neumann self replicating entity. Namely: (i) an underlying code to record/store the required information and to guide procedures for using it, (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions, and (iv) implementing machines (and associated organisation and procedures) to carry out the specified replication (including that of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that provide required specific materials and forms of energy by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. Also, parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating von Neumann universal constructor. That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicator to exist. [[Take just one core part out, and function ceases: the replicator is irreducibly complex (IC).]. This irreducible complexity is compounded by the requirement (i) for codes, requiring organised symbols and rules to specify both steps to take and formats for storing information, and (v) for appropriate material resources and energy sources. In short, we are looking at algorithmic functional information, based on digital states, processed as data structures using step by step procedures. I am sure UB would appreciate your answer when he gets back. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Warehuff- "What? You mean the sperm and egg are dead? Or do you mean when something (the fertilized egg) is present that can develop into a human being? But what if that egg divides a few times and we split it into TWO groups of cells, each capable of developing into a human being? (This is how identical twins are formed.) Where did the extra human being come from? Come to think of it, it’s only a matter of time and money until we can take an unfertilized egg, double its single stranded DNA and turn it into a human being sans fertilization. (It happens in “lower” animals already without human intervention.) How about this definition: Eggs, sperm and fertilized eggs are all human flesh. It takes a lot more development before anything remotely like a spirit exists. When that spirit is finally present, the human flesh becomes a human being." I agree, spirit matters. I'm just wondering, how are you in a position to know when the spirit is present? It could be that the spirit is present even before fertilization. Only God knows that really.Phaedros_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

warehuff Regarding the status of the embryo, you might like to have a look at these articles by Professor David Oderberg, who is pro-life: The Metaphysical Status of the Embryo: Some Arguments Revisited Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: What's wrong with it? I hope you enjoy the articles.vjtorley_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Wonderful! I log in this morning to find not one but three challenges. I am traveling today, so I am all the more excited to return and address all three. I look forward to it.Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

BiPed, You said, "it is not I that must parse the concept of information; it is those who must argue that it can be made irrelevant in a biological sense." That's quite a strange position you have there. YOU are trying to introduce the concept of "information" into biology, but you're denying that you're responsible for a concise definition? That runs contrary to the established rules of science and, more importantly, logical reasoning. The attempt by IDers to hijack Shannon theory has been debunked many times by a variety of well-credentialed folks. The gist is that Shannon was dealing with message transmission, and ASSUMED a "transmitter" and "receiver". Applying that to biology means that you must ASSUME a designer-transmitter. Furthermore, what is the "message" in biology? What is "noise"? If the message is the genetic code, and noise is a corruption of that code that is detrimental to the organism, then that makes noise a locally subjective concept since one code change might be harmful in one environment while beneficial in another. Also, that would concede that evolution can CREATE information, since harmful changes have been observed mutating back to the original "message". Your rambling about "perception" being an inextricable part of your definition of "information" just confirms your ASSUMPTION OF (contrast that with EVIDENCE FOR) "transmitter" and "receiver".racingiron_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @ 32: "Instead, ALL information about the reality of the universe comes from first perceiving what reality is. This holds true for the lowly earthworm that has crawled out onto a concrete sidewalk, and well as for an astrophysicist trying to hit a target in space 20,000,000 miles from Earth. Information about reality is the product of sensory perception. There are no exceptions to this observation, just as there are no exceptions to the observation that perception is a faculty originating from a singular type of thing – an agent." Ahhh! Now I understand! You have only a partial understanding of information. Shannon's work only covers the transmission of already existing information from one point to another. Generating information, especially useful non-noise information, is another thing altogether. Evolution actually generates new information and it does it by changing or adding to whatever information it already has. For example, the first living thing was probably a small self-reproducing molecule. If you have a self-reproducing molecule, the information is in the layout of the molecule that allows it to reproduce itself. During copying, mistakes are often made that change a part of that molecule or add a new part onto it. (Mutation.) These changes and new parts are new information. To see if the new informatioin is noise or useful information, the new molecule "tries" to reproduce itself with the new information. If it reproduces as well as it did with the old information or better, then the new information is useful and it's retained. If not, it's noise and it's lost because the new molecule doesn't reproduce at all or reproduces too slowly to keep up with the old molecules with their old information. There you have information and even new improved information being generated, but there's no agent or sensory perception involved at any step.warehuff_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, those are some interesting questions you asked of Truism in 26: 1: Do you have any empirical evidence that shows evolution is capable of the onset of information processing within the cell? I don't think anybody can answer the first question. It would require knowledge of the pre-cellular and very early cellular history of life and we don't have any detailed fossil remains from that era to examine. If we did, and it was accomplished by natural means, then the answer would be obvious. What does ID say about the onset of information processing in the cell? Does ID have any actual knowledge of what happened or does ID just say that an Intelligent Designer did it without providing any empirical evidence? If so, then ID and evolution are both in the dark here except that evolution says it happened via natural causes and nobody doubts that natural causes exist. 2: Do you have even a conceptual path that would lead to semiotic information processing by unguided means? An evolutionary conceptual path would be something like an RNA-like self-reproducing molecule accumulating extra "noise" bases during reproduction and some of them synthesizing a molecule that makes a cell wall or a helper protein - anything that would make reproduction faster or more efficient. But in the absence of empirical evidence, that's just guessing. What does ID say about question 2? Does ID have a conceptual path for how an Intelligent Designer did the trick? Just saying, "An Intelligent Designer" did it doesn't really help, since it's just restating ID's original thesis that an Intelligent Designer (somehow) did it. 3: What do we do with the universal knowledge that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself? What "universal knowledge" are you talking about here? Can you give us some empirical evidence that it's impossible? I don't see why it should be. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything unnatural in the operation of modern cells. What evidence do you have that says they couldn't have started through natural means?warehuff_{May 6, 2010
May
05
May
6
06
2010
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

racingiron, I stand by the established literal meaning of information (that which gives form; that which in-forms). However, it is not I that must parse the concept of information; it is those who must argue that it can be made irrelevant in a biological sense. They are forced to do so by the weight of the evidence against their position. But I’ll play along if you insist. Here is my response. I assume the concept of information in the same way that Claude Shannon did when he wrote his treatise on information theory. He recognized that there is meaningful information, and then there is noise. You can glean the distinction he makes in the second sentence of the second paragraph of his work:
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. (emphasis in the original)
If that is not clear enough for you, then you can turn to Fig. 1 on the second page of the same paper. It offers a schematic diagram with five individually-named boxes. From left to right there is as arrow which passes through four of the five boxes in a specific order to indicate the flow of information. The flow begins at “Information Source” then passes through “Transmitter” to “Receiver” and finally to “Destination”. The fifth of the five boxes is tangentially tied to the flow of information between the “Transmitter” and the “Receiver”. The fifth box in entitle “Noise Source”. In other words, Shannon was working with the engineering aspects of the transmission and reception of information through a medium. To do this he had to operate from the perspective of the receiver, and he must assume an Information Source of meaningful content, as well as Noise. I hope that helps. Now I would like you to focus on the box entitled “Information Source”. In his paper, Shannon develops the idea of Information Source by giving a series of examples. Each is an example of meaningful information. Example a) is an example of semantic content in the form of “a sequence of letters” such as in telephony. Other examples are examples of engineering content transmitted in order to create a specific function at the receiving end of the transmission (such as video image reproduction data). There are combinations of the two as well. Now that Shannon has firmly established that an Information Source is a generator of meaningful information (quite separate from a Noise Source) then we can return to my previous post to which you have objected. Where does meaningful information come from? More aptly, where does the meaningful information about the reality of the universe come from? It does not exist in the particles of matter that make up the universe. We do not peer into a carbon atom and find protons, electrons, and particles of information. Instead, ALL information about the reality of the universe comes from first perceiving what reality is. This holds true for the lowly earthworm that has crawled out onto a concrete sidewalk, and well as for an astrophysicist trying to hit a target in space 20,000,000 miles from Earth. Information about reality is the product of sensory perception. There are no exceptions to this observation, just as there are no exceptions to the observation that perception is a faculty originating from a singular type of thing – an agent. (And consequently, your complaint about there being a uniquely human aspect to this observation is divorced from reality. Information existed and was being used to create biological function long before humans appeared on Earth.) Now, you may falsify these observations by providing a single bit of information about the reality of the universe which did not first arise by means of perception. I’ll be waiting to eat my words, or to receive your concession to the facts.Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Clive, I think you actually did the poor fella a favour given how Upright Biped was handling him.above_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply