Information and Genetics

Ah, Dembski. So many errors--- so many compounded errors and fallacies--- so little time.Dillan, I admire your ability to make Dembski's theories understandable, unfortunately it doesn't make them any more correct.Let's start with the basics.1) The world is physical in nature. All of it. Even DNA follows the strictest of physical laws. This is patently absurd as they obviously combine at several different body temperature, and in some orderly arrangement too. Clearly the question science must--- and is trying to--- answer is under what conditions found outside of preexisting living biological systems can organic monomers form orderly arrangements. I have seen no evidence that "all conditions" have been tried, or that anyone has come close to scratching the surface on this. This is my point of course. Certainly a bunch of elements, or even compounds, shaken up and allowed to mix randomly are unlikely to form organic life. This is born out by evidence that life is pretty rare outside of certain physical-chemical conditions.The key then IS NOT calculating or reproducing in the lab "random shake-up" scenarios based on plausible early earth conditions and hoping life falls out of the beaker or program. These methods clearly do not work.The key IS finding what temperature, pressure, and chemical environments allow for, or are likely to produce the chemical building blocks of life and (using laws of equilibrium) get them into cycles of reproducing more such molecules (or arrangements of molecules).Equilibrium and the 2nd law of thermodynamics do not present problems beyond restricting parameters under which scientists must construct theories of how life might have started. As life does exist, and continues to do so in spite of these realities, it is not such a stretch to assume the precursors of life could have as well.The 2nd law in particular, is helpful for understanding how abiogenesis may have occurred. Heat, either through the sun, or--- more plausible these days--- from thermal vents, could first off "cooked" carbon compounds into protective shields for other carbon compound. Within these shields, heat and cooling cycles would allow for many many different interactions and increasing complexity. This is not to mention the variety of inorganic binding sites and environments possible within those shields.Without the constant input of energy, and fluctuations of energy-chemical environments, the reproduction of organic molecules would certainly have ended due to equilibrium. In fact this is no different today. Stop eating for about twenty days, and soon your friends will be able to watch your organic chemicals reach equilibrium with the environment and reproduce no more.Life exists BASED on the second law of thermodynamics, and equilibrium. Not the other way around. Even if these things make our understanding how life began a little bit longer of an investigation, and limits life to very rare physical-chemical environments.2) Information is the only thing which we can say for sure is intelligently designed. Without the human brain (or some form of intellect) there is simply no such thing as information.While objects in the world interact according to how physical-chemical conditions allow them to, humans try to understand the world around them by creating concepts, words, and languages to represent what they observe. In short, humans create mental models of physical events to comprehend what they observe, and then physical models of their mental models to communicate this comprehension to others. The physical and mental models are what we call information. All this says to me is that once again humans are clambering to confuse their mental constructs for real physical events, as they had the misfortune of doing once before.When modelling biological systems, so that our minds can understand them, it is convenient to anthropomorphize them, or analogize them to human constructs. This does not mean they act like humans or are in any way shape or form similar to human constructs.I totally agree that DNA may be said to contain "information." But that is a handy metaphor, not a description of reality. It is not real information, like an architect's blueprint. Nor does it act like a blueprint. There are no outside independent beings reading the "information" held within the structure and trying to assemble separate elements according to the DNA plan.All that happens IN REAL LIFE, is that given the chemical structure and correct environmental conditions, other chemicals react with it in such a way that more organic products result, generally beneficial to continued organic survival of whatever that entity happens to be. There is no "conscious" effort on the part of the other chemicals making up a particular cell to comprehend the information each strand holds and reproduce that..But let me use the "information" analogy to help an ID theorist understand how the 2nd law works for abiogenesis. You could consider the first shielded organic globules (which happen in nature all the time) to be like empty human libraries. Sources of heat and chemicals add different "books" to the library. Some worthwhile as "information" (nonfiction), but most just worthless (fiction). On their own they don't do much. But eventually with enough absorbed content the information stored within the library becomes more than the sum of its books.The first "cells" which switched from technically nonliving to living, are best conceived as nothing more than storehouses of energy and the chemical compounds which naturally exist in such environments... and more importantly generate more such chemicals in that environment.Most certainly I have seen no evidence which indicates molecules in living systems are more intelligent than those in their nonliving counterparts, and so living because they literally know how to read a blueprint and build a "house" to protect themselves.Information theorists like Dembski have done a great disservice to both the study of information and the study of the natural world, by conflating information into something beyond analogy or tool of communication between sentient beings. Such theorists are able to do so only by equivocating between information and "information".3) While minds create information, the only minds known to exist are physical entities themselves, and create other "information loaded" systems only by interacting via physical laws.This is where ID theorists really begin backtracking on their professed rigorous logic. But science would NOT point beyond the physical world. The only intelligent sources which humans have encountered are physical in nature and utilize physical means to create that order. This is wrong as DNA itself has plenty of information, the only caveat is it must be within the right environment. For example you can take "freefloating" DNA (as long as it hasn't been degraded), stick it in an empty cell body (even a foreign cell body) and it can start generating proteins. This is also witnessed in the phenomena of bacteria injesting DNA and even parts of DNA structures, and "using" it. Not that it "chooses" what to use, but the new DNA reacts per chemical reactions with other DNA strands and effects the overall physical nature of the bacteria. The DNA does not have to be "correctly formatted", nor were they "corrupted" if broken up. They are "informative" as far as life is concerned long as they generate proteins in the correct environment.But I digress, let's run with the DNA/CD analogy. and Whether we accept that the abstract concept of information is a concrete entity separate from the medium or not, clearly the "outside intelligent source" must be physical.Where is the evidence of any supernatural computers writing to disk from outside time and space?Where is their evidence of any supernatural entity altering physical information sources from outside time and space?There is none, yet this is where every ID theorist ends up: Where in information theory did God make his entrance?a) Human inventions (physical or language) are store houses of information.b) Humans must have had more information content to make their inventionsthusc) we can see that what creates information must contain information (ie only information makes information) and by necessity MORE information than what was created (nevermind accumulations of information from separate sources, for purposes of this argument)and sinced) the first original cell had informationnaturallye) the first biological cell must have been created (given information) by something nonbiological, and something with much greater information content.This is as far as we can possibly get, even ignoring the flaws contained within.Where we cannot go next is:f) since there are no known physical nonbiological systems which can provide or create information, it must have been a supernatural nonbiological entity.This is especially true if we have no evidence for supernatural entities. If one must choose between accepting a physical nonbiological agency we simply haven't found yet, or a supernatural entity we haven't found yet (and no evidence for supernatural existences at all), which is more logical?But let's keep running with this line of logic. Let's say f is true. If f is true, then as a LOGICAL NECESSITY of Dembski's 4th law of conservation:g) the supernatural entity God, who contained information to create life, must have been created by another entity that had still greater information.There is simply no escaping this result. Not even through appeals that God exists beyond the laws of time and space. If so, then Dembski's 4th law is moot. Remember everything you (and he) have expounded is based on the idea that information is an entity wholly separate from the physical world, and bound by the separate laws of information. They must bind supernatural as well as natural, as long as it is information.4) I'm interested to your response to the above, and to this following observation... if logically there must have been a supernatural "life creating" agent, and that agent (or agents) had a purpose for living organisms, wouldn't it make sense to figure out what that purpose was by what our "code" gives us, and which religion is correct based on how well it fits the creation event now described?The Bible does not even come close to describing the events you have outlined, and its proscriptions seem to run counter to what our genetic drives suggest as our purpose.If anything the ancient egyptian religion involving Ptah's masturbating into a primordial ocean seems more on top of the facts.Why is it that ID theorists embrace Xtianity at all, given this discrepancy (ie why does rigorous logic not mandate scrutiny of even the spiritual information world)?------------------
holmes

I totally forgot to address the SETI example you gave.It existed before specified complexity, and hopefully will long after that misguided deconstruction of science goes away.Perhaps the movie Contact should have been more explicit about what methods the actual SETI project used to set the parameters of its search.What is interesting is ID theorists never managed to make it past the signal discovery. After the scientists were excited, many remained sceptical even as it shifted into a translation phase. This phase was important in moving the identification along.In the end there was no conclusion able to be made by science. Oh hints about missing time on a tape? That's about it.If anything that movie should act as an antidote for information theory conflators. It showed that real scientists demand more than a few lines of ordered (specifically complex?) radio signals to declare anything as manufactured by unknown entities.------------------
holmes

I'm sorry to say that I was disappointed by your response dillan. You not only repeated information that you had posted previously, but did so for no reason.Perhaps I did not make my argument clear enough.I understand the thermodynamic difference between water molecules forming ice crystals (moving to a lower state), and specific bio-organic chemicals overcoming bond issues (moving to a higher state). Furthermore I understand that the chemical systems themselves--- that is those involved with self-generating cycles--- involve whole SYSTEMS moving to a higher state.[note: I notice what has conveniently never been mentioned is the natural formation of hydrophobic-hydrophilic environments by carbon based molecules. This thermodynamic and equilibrium based reality is plausibly the reason protective barriers formed isolating and allowing for complex organic combinations-recombinations, including the ultimate formation of actual porous membranes.]Certainly I made it clear I understood living beings carry around preset thermodynamic conditions necessary for sustaining life.Thus I was in agreement with everything that you had previously posted on this subject and it did not have to be repeated. Where I reiterated what you had previously posted, it was to use it to make a point...The only SCIENTIFIC question worth investigating, given thermodynamic realities, is under what nonbiotic environmental conditions could a self-generating organic system form?Only if such conditions are impossible to be met, can abiogenesis be discarded.Other than repetitively quoting finger pointing at what scientists have already acknowledged (ie, AT PRESENT there is no satisfactory answer to what the exact conditions actually were), the only counterargument you gave was incredulity from Gish. It sure is easy for abstract theorists to talk away science theories. The fact is each of these assumptions are strawmen. I don't see how any of those assumptions are necessary, unless Gish has some god-like knowledge of what primitive earth conditions existed during the process (it is not an instant) of abiogenesis.His first point alone had me scratching my head. Where on prebiotic, primitive EARTH were conditions theorized as (much less believed to be) simply interactions of raw energy and simple gases. That sounds more like the initial foundations of the cosmos or the earth itself. Yes. Why would it not be reasonable? Chiral clays have been mentioned as possible templates. Although I would caution the use of the word information; it should be in quotes. A template is simply a physical form exhibiting the property for producing set or similar chemical structures. There are countless templates (even an accidental scratch on the inside of a beaker can act as one).The eventual, incidental formation of a template that can aid organic polymerizations, specifically polymers which are likely to react with other organic compunds in a way that makes the products templates as well, is not unreasonable.Or let me put it another way. How is that any less reasonable a hypothesis than ascribing this creation of information in lifeless molecules to a supernatural template maker?This latter theory requires some evidence for:
1) the existence of a supernatural realm at all
2) its ability to interact with the natural realm
3) that information can exist in this supernatural realmOtherwise you are simply making a blank assertion. This is all mere assertion. Where is the evidence for any of these statements?As I stated, and gave some descriptive evidence for, information in its literal sense is purely an abstract reality. It is a mental construct used by minds to comprehend physical realities, and communicate them to others.It is not quantitative as are matter and energy. For example if a library burns down there is no measurably greater fuel for the fire than the matter and potential energy provided by the physical contents within.While the information content destroyed in such a fire may be considered invaluable if "measured" by one group, it could be "measured" by another group to be completely worthless. Both would be valid.For example the information content of the vatican's vast porn collection is likely to be viewed as wildly different depending on who is doing the measuring... ie, they're ability to recognize a use for the information, or that it is information at all.This is wholly different than the "information" DNA carries. DNA simply causes protein creation within the correct environment. It doesn't require that anything "understand" it. That is only a convenient metaphor. In fact, DNA may produce something else in another environment. Humans have simply said this other ability is worthless because it doesn't contribute to life. So we are selecting which is the important "information" it contains and pretend like it does nothing else (or that is what it was "created" for).The question, once again, boils down to how the original biotic environment could have formed in a previously abiotic environment, such that DNA could do what it does to continue or cause "life".I'm going to ignore the reality that DNA may not have even been the original "life" molecule anyway, to address the underlying question of how the proper abiotic hardware and "program" may have appeared such that the DNA code (which could have formed before it had a reason to stick around) could operate as it does now.The answer is location location location. Location for energy input and heat sink (this is why deep ocean vents offer prospects), location for protective interaction with other carbon chain molecules, and location for proper site bonding.You conveniently did not address--- and I wish you had--- my analogy of prebiotic systems to a library. In fact, you dodged the implications that libraries serve in order to state your final sentence above.Storage of information within some entity, results in accumulation of information, which incidentally and generally results in that entity having more and wholly separate information than the sum of the information "pieces" stored within. Again this is dependent on the mind interpreting the information, but this information REALITY both defies Dembski's 4th law and shows that volition is unnecessary to the transfer or creation of information.Like a library, organic bits of all sorts of manner would accumulate and interact within the protective barriers which FORM NATURALLY. Eventually when the correct "volumes" have entered the collection, these "organic libraries" may contain more "life" information than the sum of the bits which entered it. Such entities did not know they were accumulating the "secrets" of life. It was simply accumulating chemicals until the correct chemicals were present to form autocatalytic cycles necessary for life.Since you do not want to deal with thermodynamics, please deal with this very real problem for information theory in general. Accumulating data may result in new or greater information. This is all pure assertion, and self-serving assertion at that. Please construct a proper logical argument, with evidence where evidence is required, to make these statements.According to information theory, including the argument I quoted from you earlier, information is just as real as matter or energy and beholden to laws applicable to information.While I find this a ridiculous, if not obvious, attempt by abstract mathematicians to elevate their subjects to some form of substantial reality. And that this has the more ridiculous, if not obvious, motive of equating information with the spiritual world. This theory has necessary conclusions and logic which cannot be cast off so easily by its adherents.I have already outlined three points above you must deal with, regarding this so-called supernatural realm, which--- as it is--- remains nothing better than a fairy-tale until evidence is presented.But we also need an explanation of why supernatural entities are not susceptible to the laws of information, if indeed information is bound by laws?If laws of information do not apply to the supernatural, then why not to simply extradimensional natural phenomena. Or in any case who is to say then that it was not an accidental or incidental "natural reaction" by an abiotic, unintelligent supernatural entity (like the crash of a falling supernatural boulder) which caused the information of life to form in our natural world? If the laws of information fail at the level of the supernatural then all explanatory power regarding inormation is gone.You also dodged another important point. Let's say everything points to a supernatural information producing agency. Where can you possibly come to the conclusion it is a biblically related entity? There is little to no correlation between the universe described by information theory and the one in scripture. It appears you simply ignore the vigorous logic you claim must be applied to understanding to world, to this part of the world.Ancient egyptian mythos (particularly Ptah) reads along the lines of scientific ID beliefs in panspermia.Or what about Gaia? The whole idea is that there is an earth-mother which is basically a supernatural life force that drove natural life to begin and thrive.You can take a break, but I hope you do reply at some point. The questions certainly won't be going away. I will be very disappointed if I see you popping up to post again, without addressing these outstanding issues.------------------
holmes

Oh yeah, I forgot... This is easily refuted. Brains, when damaged physically or influenced through chemicals or intense electromagnetic waves, may have totally new information "appear" for the "user" of that brain.This requires neither transfer nor creation of information to that brain from an outside intelligent source. A high enough intensity wire can make some people see "ghosts".This is not to mention physical activity internal to the brain. Strokes, epileptic attacks, and chemical imbalances which result from improper functioning of the brain may result in new ideas, sometimes some crazy ideas, or information.Information contained in the brain is not real and separate. It is real only if it is integral.------------------
holmes

I have looked over the debate and do not see any equivocation on the part of crashfrog, but do see equivocation on your part. This is what I find when I look up "code" in the merriam-webster dictionary...1 : a systematic statement of a body of law; especially : one given statutory force
2 : a system of principles or rules
3 a : a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
4 : GENETIC CODE [note, which if looked up gives this definition: the biochemical basis of heredity consisting of codons in DNA and RNA that determine the specific amino acid sequence in proteins and appear to be uniform for all known forms of life]
5 : a set of instructions for a computerYou are equivocating between 3,4, and 5.If crashfrog was equivocating, could you please be more clear as to what different definitions he was confusing together? If your definition of code is loose enough to see no distinction between the genetic code (which is merely a group of chemicals that exhibit autocatalytic properties which have come to be important to living organisms) and codes preconceived of and written by human beings, then your claim is not indisputable.Some have already claimed that nature can produce, through randomprocess etc etc, codes along the lines of the genetic code.Your response was to assert that only intelligence can produce codes, the only plausible evidence to support your argument apparently being that every other code humans can point to have been made by intelligent beings.Thumbing your nose at evolutionists you provide a test... Assuming such things as interactions of subatomic particles, or the "program code" of heredited instincts (including birdsongs) don't count, you feel the evolutionist is disarmed and until such a proof is brought forth... Unfortunately your syllogism is not correct. No codes I know of have been created by the disembodied abstract concept of "intelligence". They have been created by specific intelligent beings... intelligent NATURAL beings.What is totally unsupported is the idea that some supernatural force outside of NATURE may contain intelligence--- much less can create or impose upon natural entities a code of some kind.To rephrase your own challenge...All you need to do is to produce one SUPERnaturalistic-emulating simulation to produce a code and you falsify my truth statement.Until then your logical argument must be as follows:1) All codes are written by intelligent corporal beings (in fact, only human beings)
2) DNA is a code
therefore 3) humans created DNAIt is possible to widen the horizon to some as yet unknown intelligent agency like aliens, but not to any omnipotent supernatural "intelligence".My argument only acts as a reductio if you are trying to point to god as the ultimate source of life codes, but either way I am interested if you understand this is the position where your logic leaves you.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2003]

You know dillan, I was willing to wait for a quality response.I am surprised though to hear formulating responses are consuming so much time for you. Most of your posts are pointless cut and pastes showing you either don't really understand what your clips are saying, or what you should be addressing.I don't know why I am about to do this to myself but here goes nothing... It suggests to me that you and Gitt do not understand chemistry, the suggested plausible processes of abiogenesis, and evolution.Here's one big clue, DNA as it appears in eukaryotic organisms today is not what you need to be considering when looking at its "information" content, and what "programs" were required to properly utilize the "code".Unless you are throwing out the geologic record the first organisms (ie life) were unicellular at best and did not need codes for what a cell will "later become". That would have occurred much later due to the evolution of DNA in prokaryotes and then much later still in multicellular organisms.In fact, the first life may not have been "cellular" as we know of it today. Or is that vice versa? Either way it did not jump from nothing to large DNA structures projecting longrange multicellular entities. Why don't you answer your own question. Existing how? It would have to have been made by someone or come about naturally. Scientists today conceive of intelligence freed from biology (as in carbon-based organisms) not physical reality and nature. So what were your massive clips regarding thermodynamics about? No it is to show the insufficiency of our current knowledge of natural processes as they would have affected the process of abiogenesis. Haven't you noticed almost all of your quotes include terms such as "right now", or "at present".Unfortunately you seem to miss that your logic cuts in both directions. If natural processes are discredited according to your methods, the supernatural is discredited much much much more so. Information scientists will not disagree, information priests might. I already agreed that information cannot come about under any circumstance. I only disagreed with your assertion that information was a real quantitative and qualitative entity such as matter or energy. It is purely a subjective, man made entity."Information" by which I mean the physical qualities of unintelligent phenomena that are best described through metaphor, may be quantitative, or qualitative. Most certainly it seems to contain a quality that distinguishes it from manmade information. You are confused by more than just my analogy. First of all you still haven't proven the "fact" you assert in your first sentence. Second you have just proven my point that chemical "information" systems are qualitatively different than linguistic information systems. You realize that all the above says is that if Gitt can't figure out what caused something with his linguistic theories, whatever we decide to make up is the only solution?You keep talking about this "supernatural" thing. What is that? I have never seen an example of it at all. And according to Gitt's own logic if it cannot be shown then it must simply not exist. Wait a minute that must mean that naturalistic evolution is right... Oh yeah, but Gitt is the expert who can say I am wrong and still be right.Hey, isn't this the same negative circular logic Captain Kirk used to kill that supercomputer? Again, laws pertain to everything that might effect what I am saying, but nothing that you are talking about.The fact is I can point to chemicals, autocatalytic cycles, numerous potential environments, and the fact that "information" systems CAN BUILD NATURALLY WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENCE GUIDING IT.You cannot point to one single example of a "supernatural" being. It is simply a fairy-tale until you have some sort of example of its existence.Calculated odds of "information" systems forming randomly may be long (especially given the limits of our knowledge of how life could form), but at least those odds are POSSIBLE. The last time I checked if a particular entity does not exist at all, then the chance that it could have played a role in anything is absolute 0. So vigorous adherence to logic (even if flawed) as long as it strikes ones enemies, then abandonment as soon as it comes back to cut down your own.Ah the priests of information theory preach a very wicked religion. And my guess is he will reiterate that point no matter how much counterevidence and solid logic stands in his way.Goodbye dillan. I can only hope one day you will begin to see that Gitt doesn't really know what he is talking about.My first suggestion toward this end would be to take a chemistry course and discover how chemicals, even biochemicals, don't actually speak to each other.------------------
holmes