Evolving New Information

Then what is the positive evidence FOR Intelligent Design?Where can I make or confirm observations as to what happened - in what way was design applied? Where can I make or confirm observations as to where/when/how this occurred?Please show me how Intelligent Design is an explanation of anything. At this point, its advocates are only trying to declare it as an attribution. Do you realize the distinction?'A designer did it' is an attribution, not an explanation. It's exactly equivalent to me coming home to find a broken vase and having my child say 'a friend did it'. That EXPLAINS nothing about HOW the vase got broken.It's no more of an explanation in its field than 'our stars determine our fates' is an explanation in Astrology. A claimed agency with no actual evidence of what that agency does or has done, how that agency works (beyond the claimed 'it did things we don't yet know other explanations for').For that matter, at least Astrology can point to some characteristics of how it has to work. Not effective before birth; directional from certain solar system bodies; influences from different bodies being qualitatively distinct from one another; such influences combinatorial in that influences from different celestial bodies amplify, modify, nullify one another depending on positions relative to each other and relative to the background star field; and more.Has anything as specific as these vague characteristics been determined (or even conjectured) for how design works? Or are they not even as close to being an explanation as Astrology?

They are not random they are probabilistic. You can predict how many of each molocules will produced.Chemical reactions are also entropic whereas the cell is antientropic.To create new information is counter entropic. This is what you guys have to try explain with known laws of nature. Chemicals contain no information, they're just chemicals subject to the natural laws. Information exists outside of matter. Why do you make such a silly statement when you don't even believe it yourself. Information requires an encoder a decoder and a language, none of these are present in matter but are all present in the cell.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

LTA, They can be "anti-entropic", too. How do you think large molecules form from smaller ones? How do you think they can broken down again? One of those reactions increases entropy, the other reverses it. The laws of nature allow for local increases & decreases in entropy so no law has been broken.Not that new information has any bearing on increases & decreases of energy available for work, anyway, of course.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

More nonsense.The "laws of nature" allow entropy to go both ways. It is only creation "scientists" who have problems accepting those laws because the results are counter to their religious beliefs.In this case (back to the topic of the thread) creation "scientists" torture information theory to try to make the answers come out they way they believe. Doesn't work, of course, but try convincing them of that!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

LucyTheApe responds to me:

quote:

---

They are not random they are probabilistic.

---

Do you even know what the term "probabilistic" means? Or are you just throwing it out in hopes of dazzling me with bullshit? I am a mathematician. My specialty was numerical modeling. I know a fair about about probability and statistics.They are random. There isn't a "probability" regarding the products of the reaction. That's because the chemistry is a forcing process. You don't get hydrogen peroxide out of the reaction unless the conditions allow it. That is a factor of local conditions combined with the reactivity traits of oxygen and hydrogen. The reason why water is the favored product is because the local conditions are overwhelmingly such that the reactive traits of oxygen and hydrogen force a result of the oxygen and hydrogen molecules splitting and then recombining to form water:2H₂ + O₂ -> 2H₂OBut because the mixture is not uniform, because there are variations, because the energy distribution is not perfectly even as the reaction travels across the gas mixture, sometimes we get another reaction:H₂ + O₂ -> H₂O₂This isn't a question of "probability." It is forced due to the nature of chemistry. We cannot assign any probability to any given atom about what will happen to it because it is so dependent upon local conditions. Once those local conditions resolve, the reaction is forced.

quote:

---

Chemical reactions are also entropic whereas the cell is antientropic.

---

OK...it is clear you don't know what those terms mean.Very simple: What is "entropy"? Hint: If your answer includes any of the words "order," "disorder," or "information," then your answer is incorrect. No, don't look it up. I am not interested in what you can quote from someone else. I want to hear it in your own words:Starting from first principles of thermodynamics, what is the definition of entropy? Along those lines, what is the opposite of entropy?Have you ever heard of "Gibbs Free Energy"? What does it have to do with chemical reactions? How exactly does the cell find the energy it needs to function? You have heard of the citric acid cycle, yes? Cellular respiration? Photosynthesis? Fermentation? Glycolysis? ATP? NAD? Pyruvate?Can you draw out the free energy levels for each of the steps in glycolysis and respiration?Do you have any idea what "entropic" means?

quote:

---

To create new information is counter entropic.

---

So since "new information" is a forced result of chemical reactions, what is the problem?Which has more "information": A or AA?
Which has more "information": A or B?
Which has more "information": A or AB?Or are you saying that something is going on inside the cell other than chemistry?

quote:

---

Chemicals contain no information, they're just chemicals subject to the natural laws.

---

So are you saying that there is something going on inside the cell other than chemistry?

quote:

---

Why do you make such a silly statement when you don't even believe it yourself.

---

You're the one that's talking about "information," not me. I'm the one saying that the cell is simply a place where some interesting chemistry takes place.Are you saying that there is something going on inside the cell other than chemistry?

quote:

---

Information requires an encoder a decoder and a language, none of these are present in matter but are all present in the cell.

---

I'm going to keep on asking until you answer:Is there something going on inside the cell other than chemistry? There is something other than matter in a cell?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I happened to spot this on youtube (and boy am I glad I clicked).This deals with EXACTLY what we're talking about - the ability of genes to evolve new functions through random mutation in such a way as to avoid the mutations becoming deleterious.Now, I am still not a scientist, but this seems to propose (written way back in 1972) a mechanism for "evolving new information".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nomI35DJB40It also seems to be something that the AiG goons have quote mined and gotten wrong. On purpose. Unsurprisingly.PS: lucy? You still haven't responded to post 247

The physical implementation is an irrelevant detail. Here's your example from Message 232, I added some formatting for readability: We're wondering how you quantify how much information you added. In my genetic example I quantified how much information was added by a single mutation, and we're asking you to quantify how much information you added by modifying your code. I did detail your ignorance. Again, DNA uses many more bits than necessary to represent and communicate information. The three alleles of my example require only 1.585 bits, not 12. The extra 10.415 bits are redundant and unnecessary as far as representing information. If you'd like clarification on any specific details, just ask. You did ask about one thing, maybe addressing this will help you understand the redundancy in DNA: Redundancy occurs whenever information is encoded using more bits than necessary. The 3 alleles of my example can be encoded in just 1.585 bits. The additional 10.415 bits are redundant. There's a huge amount of redundancy in the syntax of all computer languages. For example, the word "object" has more letters than necessary. We could get by perfectly well with just "obj".Even just a short snippet of computer code is going to be incredibly complex to analyze from an information theoretic standpoint. That's why Cavediver asked you to quantify the increase in information, because it was apparent you weren't aware how difficult this would be, and because in attempting to quantify it you would gradually come to realize this. It would be much simpler if you could keep your focus on examples simple enough to discuss here, such as my very simple genetic example. All through this thread we've been talking about both communication of information *and* creation of new information. Reproduction requires communication of genetic information from parents to offspring. When noise occurs in that communication channel then new information is introduced in the offspring. In biology this noise-induced information is called a mutation. The machinery you think is lacking is already in place. A mutated allele will still produce a protein, and that protein will still circulate throughout the organism and produce an effect. The degree of desirability of that effect governs the organism's reproductive success and whether that mutation propagates within the population.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.Edited by Percy, : Improve phrasing in next to last paragraph.

Some critics of ID and Creationism say past events should only be explain through citing natural causations and that a creator would be breaking those laws. I say you don't necessarily have to break those natural laws to design something. To automatically say that a creator broke natural laws is an "argument from ignorance" since we do not know if those laws were in fact broken.I surmise common descent would reflect a design process that wouldn't break natural laws.

In other words, if a designer really designed a replication system then the designer would have made a perfect one that wouldn't require a multilayered error correction mechanisms???A designer would have designed a perfect one right?Interestingly enough, I have never seen a Darwinist use the same logic in the "Who designed the designer?" to the argument from perfection. In other words, "How perfect does perfect have to be?" How far can we or could we take perfection?Why not just design adequate systems instead of aiming for something that is theoretically unachievable?I'm sure biological systems are subject to all sort of chemicals such as free radicals, various types of poisons, radiation, and toxins. Error correction mechanisms should help correct the damage. Let's just assume this man lied about everything and you will now have a party at your Californian residence.Why does lying about the events disprove design????? It doesn't matter if Sternberg lied. It doesn't matter if Meyer's article didn't belong there. What matters is the information in that article and you people need to refute that content. Where is your common sense?

It doesn't. However you brought up the paper and it was criticized by Wounded King as being a paper that merely said he wasn't convinced by evolution and instead he was convinced by theories that didn't have any support in peer reviewed literature.You hypothesized that "Most everyone would fear negative reprocussions for publishing an ID article in a journal like that one. " because of the consequences he faced. If you concede that he didn't have to face any consequences then you have to wonder why so few papers have come out providing evidence for intelligent design (since fear of reprisal seems unfounded).There is an open thread about the paper, Meyer's Hopeless Monster which might be a good place to discuss its actual merits in further detail.

traderdrew responds to me:

quote:

---

A designer would have designed a perfect one right?

---

Well, a designer can do anything in any way, which is why it isn't really an answer. No matter what results we get, no matter what observations we actually see, a designer that can do anything doesn't really explain anything.An answer that explains everything actually explains nothing.Before we even get to the question of why the mechanism isn't perfect, the question for you is why would the cell need a correction mechanism for chromosomal replication in the first place?

quote:

---

In other words, "How perfect does perfect have to be?"

---

You do realize that "perfect" is like "unique," yes? One cannot be "more" perfect. You either are perfect or you are not.Why would the cell need a correction mechanism in the first place?

quote:

---

Error correction mechanisms should help correct the damage.

---

Yes, but why? Why would these things have any effect in the first place? Why is there any possibility for the chemical reaction to take place in any other way?

quote:

---

Why does lying about the events disprove design?????

---

In and of itself, it doesn't. But it does call his ability to be honest about what he is talking about into question. If he is going to lie about what happened to him when he published the paper, exactly how honest can we expect him to be about why he published it? Since the review process for the paper was not followed, exactly how trustworthy can we expect to find the paper?It might have a point, but we have no way of knowing it because everything about how this paper came to be has been tainted. We'll have to start over from the very beginning. There's a reason we subject papers to peer review and don't just publish anything.

quote:

---

What matters is the information in that article and you people need to refute that content. Where is your common sense?

---

Nice try, but that's our argument to you. Common sense indicates that a paper that was specifically and deliberately taken outside of the normal processes of review, inserted into a journal that it has no business being in, and to have the person who did it go off on a screaming tirade about how oppressed he is when absolutely nothing happened to him is indicative that there is something very suspect about this paper, especially since it runs counter to every other result we have ever found.Common sense would indicate that Meyer needs to go back to the drawing board, resubmit his paper to an appropriate journal, have it go under proper review, and then see where we are. Those who propose "ID" are the ones who need to come up with the proof. This paper might be it but it hasn't been properly examined.Nobody gets the benefit of the doubt in science. All claims are met with skepticism since justification is always required. So far, "ID" has yet to provide one single piece of evidence to justify itself.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Can't you see that it is not only "god of the gaps", it is also "evolution of the gaps" or an "argument from ignorance of natural causes".In other words, I will almost meet you half way based on the limited amount of data behind this and there is no known way to explain it relative to current mainstream science. If I didn't think these systems didn't require foresight and coherence then I would agree with you.

I would expect scientists who are proponents of ID to do research. This is because it is obvious to me natural laws and natural causes are operating all of the time. But you are probably using Creationism as a reference for comparison and that is why you see it as "so close". I would really like to know what they were if I have not refuted them. There may be an assumption here that we cannot figure out the way an intelligent designer designed things. I believe that Wounded King and I mutally agreed when you take this outside of science into atheism or ID it then falls into the realm of philosophy. I, of course, do not believe Richard Dawkin's arguments are better. When Darwin's theory became well known 150 years ago, archaeopteryx was found two years later. This I believe was no accident. The whole paradigm permeated its way into the way societies thought and how governments ran. Trends form and their effects are felt. Look at the stock market trend in the 1990s and the real estate trend and the current trend in gold. No single explanation can be found for the reason why they were formed. All of these trends were driven by multiple reasons.

Conduct a google search with these terms - "James Shapiro natural genetic engineering" and click the fifth link down.

It can be found anywhere through the microscope to the telecope. The fine-tuning of all of these things:1. the cell 2. the terrestrial environment of the earth (things such as life supporting cycles and radioactive isotopes) and our life supporting moon. 3. the solar system and its position in the galaxy which also happens to be a galaxy better suited to support life. 4. fine-tuning of physics of our universe such as gravity and nuclear force. Here is an example I found from physics:Mathematician Roger Penrose (Penrose 1981) has estimated that the margin of error permitted here was less than 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power (that is, 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros, more zeros than there are particles in the universe!) You wouldn't accept that throwing the broken pieces of a vase into a bag and shaking it would create a new vase. You would demand an explanation other than that one.I don't see any reason why science cannot investigate astrology. It can investigate anything it wants. Let me see. The designer would probably have arranged the amino acids in the first proteins (assuming proteins came before DNA). There are left handed and right handed amino acids. The designer probably used only left handed amino acids and arranged them in specific ways and assembled at least thousands of them together specified arrangements to the resulting protein fit together and worked together coherently.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.