Information Intelligent Design

New (podium-free) film addresses origin of information

Spread the love

Further to: Origin of life research still “abject failure” (Franklin Harold)? The answers will remain murky because the researchers are trying to get information out of matter. Great physicists have said it was the other way around:

Here’s the trailer for a new film addressing the problem, The Information Enigma

Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? Could it have been produced by an unguided Darwinian process? Or did it require intelligent design? The Information Enigma is a fascinating 21-minute documentary that probes the mystery of biological information, the challenge it poses to orthodox Darwinian theory, and the reason it points to intelligent design. The video features molecular biologist Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer, author of the books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

It isn’t even clear how to relate the common measurements of information with the common measurements of matter and energy. But, of course, there is always another theory on offer that ignores the basic problem and tries to derive the bit from the it.

Also note: What IS information, when so many sciences disagree? (a meeting of interested scientists and philosophers November 13-14 in Seattle)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “New (podium-free) film addresses origin of information

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    Did anyone else notice the nod to Dr. Dembski at about 1:37 in?

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    Bob O’H,

    The video showed that the combinatorial explosion irrefutably kills OOL and Darwinian theories dead before they are even born and the only thing you find noteworthy is that a nod was given to Dr. Dembski?

    You people are despicable jackasses, traitors to your own species.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou, in regards to ‘combinatorial explosion’ you may appreciate the following article:

    The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications – Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Tompa and Rose calculate the “total number of possible distinct patterns of interactions,” using yeast, a unicellular eukaryote, as their model system; this “total number” is the size of the space that must be searched. With approximately 4,500 proteins in yeast, the interactome search space “is on the order of 10^7200, an unimaginably large number,” they write — but “more realistic” estimates, they continue, are “yet more complicated.” Proteins present many possible surfaces for chemical interaction. “In all,” argue Tompa and Rose, “an average protein would have approximately 3540 distinguishable interfaces,” and if one uses this number for the interactome space calculation, the result is 10 followed by the exponent 7.9 x 10^10.,,, the numbers preclude formation of a functional interactome (of ‘simple’ life) by trial and error,, within any meaningful span of time. This numerical exercise…is tantamount to a proof that the cell does not organize by random collisions of its interacting constituents. (i.e. that life did not arise, nor operate, by chance!)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65521.html

    Tompa and Rose have sketched the theoretical basis for why this happens:

    [O]ur calculations of combinatorial complexity [show] that the emergent interactome could not have self-organized spontaneously from its isolated protein components. Rather, it attains its functional state by templating the interactome of a mother cell and maintains that state by a continuous expenditure of energy. In the absence of a prior framework of existing interactions, it is far more likely that combined cellular constituents would end up in a non-functional, aggregated state, one incompatible with life…The spontaneous origination of a de novo cell has yet to be observed; all extant cells are generated by the division of pre-existing cells that provide the necessary template for perpetuation of the interactome.

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:3-4
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Nickelback – Savin’ Me – music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPc-o-4Nsbk

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    I used to think the term, ‘meathead’ was only a term of disparagement, of insult. But these materialist guys make the concept sound pretty classy.

  5. 5
    News says:

    Hey, some of you guys, and you know who you are, this is a family restaurant. Brawlers is two blocks down and around the corner on your right …

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Hey Axel, I was always too skinny to be a meathead. But now I think maybe I’d qualify for meatgut status.

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    BA77 @3,

    It is much worse than that, IMO. Sure, one can talk about the search space for the proteins in yeast (this alone is enough to kill the beast a thousand times over), but one can only do so after the fact. Darwinists are not permitted to do so because a blind search mechanism has no idea how big the search space is for anything. This means that the Darwinian search space is infinite, i.e., Thus both Darwinism and materialism are thoroughly refuted. They are nothing more than chicken feather voodoo science based on superstition from willingly stupid (or evil) people who can’t do simple math.

Leave a Reply