Supernatural information supplier

quote:

---

Raw electric current or a chip laying around on a bench are useless without each other and have to be pieced together just so to function. Aren't we seeing the same thing in all of this microbiological machinery?

---

The only problem with this analogy is that computer chips don't reproduce. Computer chips have not undergone evolution. Computer chips are tools whose tasks do not include self preservation. It is this property that separates the coding of DNA from man made machines. All of the functionality of a microbe, or any other living thing, is focused on passing ones genes to the next generation. Nothing more, nothing less. When viewed in this light everything makes a lot more sense within biology, well at least to me it does. It does away with the sense that DNA somehow has a purpose outside of itself.Also, life is chemistry. DNA carries the same information that a water molecule carries, or a simple sugar carries. Us humans give it meaning because we think of life as a special circumstance when in fact it isn't.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-13-2004 12:30 PM

quote:

---

As I have mentioned to Ned, ID just claims to be able to tell if an object or system is designed.

---

I agree that biological systems are designed, but I think we disagree on what or who the designer is. Just as a river designs a riverbed through the laws of gravity and friction, so does evolution create design using natural laws.

quote:

---

[ID] makes no claims on the possibility or probability of evolution happening.

---

Yes it does. Dembski's Explanatory Filter was constructed to detect biological structures that could not happen through natural means (ie evolution). Behe's Irreducible Complexity is supposedly a barrier that evolution is not able to cross. If evolution can explain a certain feature, then what do we need ID for other than religious preconceptions?I don't know if you read my thread on Stonehenge, but I argued, rhetorically, that if I decide that humans did not construct Stonehenge then Stonehenge is evidence of alien influence on the Earth. You are playing the same game. You seem to be claiming that even if natural mechanisms can explain a natural phenomena we can still conclude that supernatural mechanisms, or ID, were involved. The supernatural is not necessary if the natural is sufficient.[qutoe]And even if ID claims some object or system shows overwhelming evidence of having been designed, it wouldn't rule evolution out as having played a part, possibly even a large part.[/quote]What if evolution played the whole part? Would we still need ID?What characteristics would a designed biological organism have that a totally evolved organism not have? What is the defining characteristic that separates an intelligently designed organism from an organism designed entirely by evolution?

quote:

---

And the other problem with saying any old scenario will do is the privileged position it puts naturalism in. "Any old scenario will do as long as it is purely natural in it's mechanistic explanation" allows for solutions with little or no evidencial support.

---

Naturalism is in a privileged position compared to supernaturalism. Naturalism is testable and falsifiable while supernaturalism is not. Again, go back to my example of Stonehenge. If Stonehenge is capable of being built by stone age man, do I have any right proposing that aliens built it? Even if I don't know exactly how stone age man built Stonehenge, isn't man a better explanation than aliens?

quote:

---

Dr. Thomas Schneider, National Cancer Institute, "Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a reciever (or molecular machine)."

---

And that same Dr. T. D. Scheider demonstrated that evolutionary mechanisms create new information. No need to wonder where the new information comes from. It comes from evolution.

quote:

---

I am sure I don't have to point out the potential pitfalls and fallacies of these computer simulations. Plus, where is the machinery that gives the "info" meaning.

---

Sure, point them out. Go for it. The mechanism is the same in the computer program as it is in life. Variation and selection results in new information. There is no getting away from this conclusion.

quote:

---

If we start with zero info, we must be starting with zero machinery; how does all of that happen simultaneously?

---

But evolution doesn't start with zero machinery, it starts with life. The processes of variation and selection result in new information within reproducing populations. No outside agency is required to inject information into a biological system.

quote:

---

Well for starters of course intelligent design is inherent in the system since the program to run the simulation is designed.

---

It is designed to mimic natural mechanisms. If I write a program that mimics gravitational effects, does that mean that gravity is intelligently designed?

quote:

---

Secondly, I am sure Behe or Spetner could design a program to show that IC cannot happen by mutation and adaption or that one species of horse cannot become another by the same process, and you would not accept that as evidence.

---

If it accurately simulated evolution I would accept it. However, those experiments have already been done. For example, genetic algorithms were used to reinvent the radio which was chocked full of IC systems: Page has gone | New Scientist

quote:

---

Third, yes, evolution starts with life, but as complexity grows, the biological machinery necessary to "understand" or give meaning to the information in the genome has to be increasing in volume and complexity. An entire library of new phrases is meaningless unless biological machinery is present to react and respond appropriately.

---

How is this a problem for evolution?

quote:

---

By what mechanism is this happening. Schneider himself makes no claims for meaning.

---

Yes he does. From the abstract: "Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial 'protein' in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium."The "meaning" is the protein's ability to bind to a segment of DNA. This is what is being selected for. Over time the information needed for the protein to bind to the DNA arises through evolution. Also, the protein and the DNA sequence that it binds to co-evolve. The protein evolves to recognize the DNA, and the DNA evolves to be better recognized by the protein. This is the same mechanism that occurs in evolution. Two different "objects" coevolve together, starting as a very ineffecient system (the initial state) and moving towards an effecient system hand in hand.For example, let's look at the evolution of the bird wing. The earliest use of feathers was probably as insulation. There are fossil dinosaurs that have feathers but absolutely nothing resembling wings. One lineage of dinosaurs, probably living in an arboreal environment, started to evolve a wider and longer arm. This allowed them to make short jumps, or scramble up trees faster. It could have also allowed them to maneuver better on the ground, sort of like rudders on a boat. Then, as the arm flattened and continued to elongate, the feathers also changed to allow better air flow over the wings. This is similar to the protein/DNA example. Both apparatus, feather and arm, are reacting to the very same selective pressures. Soon, the feathered dinosaur is able to jump from tree to tree, avoiding the ground alltogether. Next, it is soaring from forest to forest, all because the arm and feather co-evolved.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-17-2004 06:36 PM

dshortt,Sorry for not getting back to you in recent days. Took a couple weeks off from work and I forced myself to stay away from the computer for that stretch of time.I have thought about your arguments about "information" and "meaning". I contend that the combination of mutation (change) and selection (ie natural selection) creates information with meaning. I think this would be best if we focus on one example that illustrates my argument.Sickle cell anemia is a condition caused by a mutated form of human hemoglobin. When you have two of the mutated genes you develop sickle shaped red blood cells which cause great pain and a shorter life expectancy. Having two copies of the gene (ie being homozygous for the sickle cell gene) also confers resistance to malaria which is also life threatening. If you have just one copy of the gene (ie heterozygous) then you do not develop anemia but still have resistance to malaria.So we have a trade off. The homozygous condition will allow you to reach reproductive maturity, but will limit your life span. Being heterozygous or homozygous for the hemS gene (the sickle cell gene) gives you a much better chance of reaching sexual maturity than those that do not have the hemS gene, being that they have a much higher chance of dying of malaria as a child. So, in areas that have high levels of malaria carrying mosquitoes we would expect this gene to be more prevalent due to selective pressures. And, wouldn't you guess, this is exactly what we see.This graph illustrates the prevalance of the hemS gene in African and Arabian populations. The second illustration illustrates the distribution of malaria within Africa. If you will notice, the two graphs correlate with each other. Areas high in malaria coincide with populations that have a high percentage of hemS homozygous and heterozygous individuals.The hemS mutation gives a new funcitonality, resistance to malaria. It also has a negative effect in the form of sickle cell anemia in homozygous individuals. So, there are both positive and negative selection pressures on this gene. The environment is what gives this gene meaning, that is whether it is "bad" or "good". This is how evolution is able to create information with meaning, through random mutations that are then selected for or against by the benefit it confers or the disadvantages it confers within a specific environment.Do you consider the hemS gene to be an increase in information, or do you not? And for what reasons?

quote:

---

If we're talking about Shannon information, then I have two comments. First, regarding the amount of information, this is an engineering question with a precise answer. Dshortt's answer can only shed light on how well he understands information theory.

---

Dshortt seems to have shied away from Shannon information. I can find it if you like, but he argues (IIRC) that Shannon info is incapable of producing meaning within biology. Dshortt seems to be looking for dshortt information, a type of information that he alone knows the definition of but is unable to accurately define. A kind of "I'll know it when I see it" sort of thing. If my hemS example does not fit into what he is looking for, then we may actually get a little closer to a clearer definition.

quote:

---

Second, meaning is a separate issue from the engineering issues regarding information - meaning is subjective and has nothing to do with information.

---

I am trying to show that the environment gives mutations an objective "meaning" through selection. This may not be adequate for information theory, but I am hoping it is adequate for the type of information that dshortt is looking for.

quote:

---

I agree with your strategy. My only point was that the question of information increase/decrease is independent from meaning. I'll make this clear through an extremely informal (and extremely invalid for anyone who wants to be picky) illustration. What contains more information, a empty piece of paper or the picture of the periodic table of elements? That's easy, right? Obviously, the periodic table of elements contains far more information. But what if our encoding is a "one if by land, two if by sea" type of system. We agree that if I hold up a blank piece of paper it means open your cipher book to page 10, which contains a whole slew of instructions, while if I hold up the periodic table of elements it means "Please wait."

---

I completely understand what you are trying to say. This is what Dr. Schneider and others have warned against, trying to apply human semantics to genetic systems. The human, "common sense" approach to information is wholly inadequate for discussing information in a genetic system. I am not well schooled in information theory, but who here is.What I am able to recognize is the nebulous characteristics that creationists and IDists apply to genetic systems. At times it becomes ridiculous, boiling down to the following statement: "Any kind of information that mutation and selection are able to create is not sufficient." The unwillingness to define information within genetic systems is not due to an inability to understand the information but an attempt to avoid being pinned down to any one definition. It comes to the point where creationists/IDists define "new information" so that it no longer pertains to evolution. More to the point, they define new information in a way that it is no longer necessary for evolution to produce new information in order to explain the biodiversity we see today.If the production of a new function through random mutation, such as malarial resistance, that is then selected for through natural selection is not new information, then evolution does not require new information. This is the problem that dshortt must face.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-05-2005 16:38 AM