inkorrekt writes:
Creation of any new information depends on intelligence.
I think I understand what you mean by "new information". Please tell me if I'm correct, by looking at the following example.
Suppose we have a creature with two chararacteristics: a colour, and a number of dots. Further suppose that the colour is encoded in a certain string of DNA - we shall call it gene I - as either G (green) or B (blue), and that the number of dots is encoded in another string of DNA - gene II - as either E (eight) or N (nine).
Now consider two different scenarios:
1. A random mutation changes gene I in such a way that it can now also have the value Y (yellow).
2. A third gene (III) appears - by whatever means - that encodes whether the creature is spherical (S) or cubical (C). (We will assume that previously it was amorphous.)
I think the difference between your assessment of this situation and that of your opponents is as follows.
You think that in the first scenario no new information was introduced - the number of genes is still two, and the length of the DNA-strings that encode them has not changed - whereas in the second scenario you will concede that new information was introduced - the number of genes is now three, and more DNA is involved. You contend that the second scenario can only happen by way of intelligent intervention. Although you have not given a definition of 'information', it seems you equate it with the number of genes and/or the amount of DNA involved: "A modified gene still has information as the DNA code."
Your opponents will say that in the first scenario, new information was indeed introduced. Although the length of the encoding DNA-string has not changed, it can now encode for three phenotypes instead of two. Since it was caused by a random mutation, the will contend that no intelligence is needed for the introduction of new information.
The second scenario is another way for your opponents to have new information introduced: they do not see any barriers for mutations to produce additional DNA, and hence additional genes.
Is my analysis correct?
You said:
No one has given any explanation as to how information can arise without intelligence.
They keep asking you for a definition of 'information', but maybe they could just assume one, like I did, and proceed from there.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 03-May-2006 12:06 PM
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
