The Simplest Protein of Life

I think at this point some evidence on genetic networks and how they are derived might be of help.Here is an excellent on-line lecture: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (University of Washington).

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

So it's turtles all the way down?Page not found – Evolving Thoughts

One does not assume that a proposal in science is true. What we do is say something like "If A is correct, then we must see B and will not see C." Then we look for B and C and use that data to give us some idea if A is indeed correct. This can be called modeling or hypothesis testing.This is the exact opposite of "assuming your opponent's proposal without reservations." What the ID lot do is start with a conclusion (divine creation) and cherry-pick anything they can to support that conclusion, using a liberal dose of exaggeration, wishful thinking, ignorance of science, misrepresentation, fabrication, and outright lying. The lying part includes pretending that they are not the same folks who pushed creation "science" a few years earlier. More likely with data.As a scientist what use do I have for false data and errors? Science builds on a foundation going back to our beginnings, and half of our work is rooting out and correcting past errors, or expanding on existing theories to make them more accurate.Creation science is the exact opposite; is it any wonder scientists have little use for it?Edited by Coyote, : Correct improper formatting.

Snowflakes are purportedly all different. As such, the next snowflake that is examined and compared to previous ones provides information: either that snowflake is indeed different from all others on record, or it matches a previous one. Either way, this is information.And it is not "guided" but happens according to the laws of chemistry and physics, etc.I believe that this answers your question.

Put the goalposts back where they were!You asked "Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?"I showed you a picture that contains some information, whether you say yea or nay. You been whupped, boy! So? There are lots of things that constitute information that are not biological.Clouds for example. Meteorologists can infer quiet a bit from the nature and behavior of clouds, and they too appear "quite literally out of thin air." If you see a funnel cloud ripping the ground up for a mile around and headed straight for you do you claim there's no information there or do you head in the opposite direction?Geology is rife with examples of information that was generated without a guided process. Crystals, stalactites and stalagmites, shrinkage cracks in clay, and sand dunes all qualify. So do ripples and waves: I hear every afternoon on a local radio station reports on the height and frequency of waves. And on occasion I hear that so many hundredths of an inch of rain fell--important information for farmers and a lot of other folks.All of these are examples of information that was generated without a guided process.They are also off-topic.