Evolution and Probability

While information theory has been mentioned in passing several times in this thread, it did not seem to me that you were using an argument based on information theory but rather on probability. If you think you're using an information theory argument then I'm somehow just not seeing it. Maybe the thread title led me astray.The Creationist information theory argument, as I understand it, goes something like this:

1. Rather than using the mathematical definition of information introduced by Claude Shannon and upon which modern information theory is based, introduce a different definition of information that purports to somehow measure semantic meaning or knowledge.
   ​
2. Assume that the equations of modern information theory still apply to this alternative definition of information.
   ​
3. Present as an axiom that this type of "information" can only be created by intelligent beings such as ourselves.
   ​
4. Conclude that since mutations are the result of a random process rather than of intelligent beings that mutations cannot create new information.

All these points are invalid. The first point is invalid because you can't redefine information to include semantic meaning or knowledge and still call it information theory. As Shannon points out in his paper right on page one: The second point is invalid because you can't take the equations of actual information theory and apply them to an alternative definition of information that includes semantic meaning. It would make as much sense as applying the rules of football or cricket to a game of chess.The third point is invalid because it must be demonstrated that only an intelligent being can create semantic information. It can't just be an axiom.The fourth point is of course valid only if the first three points are valid, but they're not, so this point also fails.In contrast to Creationist arguments based upon information theory, I think the probabilistic arguments have at least the potential for pointing to valid conclusions, but as I think this thread is demonstrating, probabilistic arguments are fraught with potential missteps and miscues. Many aspects of statistics are counter-intuitive and present conceptual stumbling blocks and pitfalls, especially so when too many numbers have to be estimated or assumed because of a lack of hard data. This isn't to in any way imply the approach is invalid, only that, especially for amateurs like ourselves, obtaining valid results, if such are possible given the available data, might take a bit of work.I think the biggest problem for the probabilistic argument is that it is attempting to demonstrate that a ubiquitous process we can actually observe and measure under controlled laboratory conditions, namely mutation and selection, nonetheless did not play any significant role in evolution, as if somehow outside the lab the process is almost irrelevant. I understand that what you're actually trying to demonstrate is that the process is insufficiently fast for the time available, but given the uncertainty in the numbers it seems appropriate to simply explore these important and pertinent questions. Concluding the process is insufficient doesn't seem possible using the data I've seen in this thread so far.--Percy

Hi Dillan,Do you think you could use the UBB codes for quoting, or at least some system to tell what you write from what you're quoting? There's a link to the left of the message reply box called *UBB Code is ON that takes you to a page that explains UBB codes. They're not too difficult to use.I didn't mean to hijack this thread into a discussion of information theory. The last time it was discussed here was I think last year with Fred in the Information and Genetics thread. I've posted a reply there at Message 65.--Percy

I think you'll find there's only two camps: information theorists and Creationists. This is the Creationist definition. It was invented to construct a plausible sounding objection to the possibility of evolution creating complexity, it has no basis in reality, and it has no actual useful application.--Percy

Hi Peter!Hmmm. Not sure you're saying anything I disagree with now. I think the reason I commented earlier was because of the "conflicting camps" characterization. I think those dealing with the communication and data storage issues issues of information theory and those studying issues related to the intelligent creation and interpretation of information think as themselves as working in different areas and don't see themselves as being in conflict with one another. Maybe if you describe what you see as the conflicts I'll understand this better. Yep! The wavefront exceeding c experiments are another good example of this. Some Creationists have already concluded the experiments are evidence of >c communication of information. Agreed.--Percy