Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Examples...?
cottshop-—
This whole article exposes the fact that it is impossible for metainfo to arise from non life- it can’t happen-
js-—
That’s for experimenters to decide. If ID proponents and creationists want to make such claims they need to get some lab work done and publish some experimental data.
How very convenient, notice it’s the burden of creationists, and not evolutionists to “prove such claims”, even though everyone knows this is exactly what natural selection asserts.
Incredible isn’t it?
That quote you gave does NOT refer to Demski’s assertion that CSI must exist first- and that he sees no way it could exist and be transfered in it’s entire complexity to a species- which is what we were discussing- not whther Demski beleives comunication can relay messages that have nothign to do with biology except to possibly help a species survive longer IF there is a master Red Rover annoucer instrucitng every species they are ‘gettign warmer’ or ‘colder’
Inversely causal meta-information
The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the most fundamental in all of science. Every scientific experiment is based upon the assumption that the end result of the experiment will be caused by something that happens during the experiment. If the experimenter is clever enough, then he/she might be able to identify that cause and describe how it produced that particular result or effect.
Causality always happens in a very specific order—the cause always comes before the effect.27 That is, event A must always precede event B if A is to be considered as a possible cause of B. If we happened to observe that A occurred after B, then this would rule out A as a possible cause of B.
In living systems however, we see the universal occurrence of inverse causality. That is, an event A is the cause of event B, but A exists or occurs after B. It is easier to understand the biological situation if we refer to examples from human affairs. In economics, for example, it occurs when behaviour now, such as an investment decision, is influenced by some future event, such as an anticipated profit or loss. In psychology, a condition that exists now, such as anxiety or paranoia, may be caused by some anticipated future event, such as harm to one’s person. In the field of occupational health and safety, workplace and environmental hazards can exert direct toxic effects upon workers (normal causality), but the anticipation or fear of potential future harm can also have an independently toxic effect (inverse causality).
Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse recently noted that inverse causality is a universal feature of life,28 and his example was that stegosaur plates begin forming in the embryo but only have a function in the adult—supposedly for temperature control. However most biologists avoid admitting such things because it suggests that life might have purpose (a future goal), and this is strictly forbidden to materialists.
The most important example of inverse causality in living organisms is, of course, autopoiesis. We still do not fully understand it, but we do understand the most important aspects. Fundamentally, it is meta-information—it is information about information. It is the information that you need to have in order to keep the information you want to have to stay alive, and to ensure the survival of your descendants and the perpetuation of your species.
This last statement is the crux of this whole paper, so to illustrate its validity lets go back to the vacuum cleaner analogy. Let’s imagine that one lineage of vacuum cleaners managed to reach the robotic, energy-independent stage, but lacked autopoiesis, while a second makes it all the way to autopoiesis. What is the difference between these vacuum cleaners? Both will function very well for a time. But as the Second Law of Thermodynamics begins to take its toll, components will begin to wear out, vibrations will loosen connections, dust will gather and short circuit the electronics, blockages in the suction passage will reduce cleaning efficiency, wheel axles will go rusty and make movement difficult, and so on. The former will eventually die and leave no descendants. The latter will repair itself, keep its components running smoothly and reproduce itself to ensure the perpetuation of its species.
But what happens if the environment changes and endangers the often-delicate metabolic cycles that real organisms depend upon? Differential reproduction is the solution. Evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins have taken this amazing ability for granted, but it cannot be overlooked. There are elaborate systems in place—for example, the diploid to haploid transition in meiosis, the often extraordinary embellishments and rituals of sexual encounters, the huge number of permutations and combinations provided for in recombination mechanisms—to provide offspring with variations from their parents that might prove of survival value. To complement these potentially dangerous deviations from the tried-and-true there are also firm conservation measures in place to protect the essential processes of life (e.g. the ability to read the DNA code and to translate it into metabolic action). None of this should ever be taken for granted.
In summary, autopoiesis is the information—and associated abilities—that you need to have (repair, maintenance and differential reproduction) in order to keep the information that you want to have (e.g. vacuum cleaner functionality) alive and in good condition to ensure both your survival and that of your descendants. In a parallel way, my humanity is what I personally value, so my autopoietic capability is the repair, maintenance and differential reproductive capacity that I have to maintain my humanity and to share it with my descendants. The egg and sperm that produced me knew nothing of this, but the information was encoded there and only reached fruition six decades later as I sit here writing this—the inverse causality of autopoiesis.
The exampekls are given in htis article and William’s original- When a change takes place within the parameters of species genetic info, this change affects not just the single cell, but MANY systems and subsystems much of hte time- When htese changes take place, certain elements in cells are isntructed to activate- to ‘turn on’, and htis clearly shows two things 1: Cells are DESIGNED to handle anticipated change, and 2: Metainfo is DESIGNED to anticipate and act upon change to facilitate species survival or fitness to hte best of it’s species specific ability- When htose parameters however are violated, and fall outside the species specific metainfo capabilites, we nkow from experiments and lab tests that it currupts and negatively affects the species.
[[I have not made mistakes on this issue.]]
Neither you nor BB did make a mistake- Allmen is conflating hte issue, and making it seem as though you and BB were tryign to say something neither of you were- He/she went from arguing about hte containment of info, to the conveying of informaiton in an attempt ot make it look as though you said somethign you didn’t
[[They do have information content in that they are necessarily part of the channel, much like a land line would be to a phone conversation. But they are not the message, nor the successful communication of the message.]]
It is clear from your posts previous that htis is exactly what you and Betty are stating-
[[Jeepers. I can’t believe I actually said it all over again.]]
Ther’es no need to explain- You both did fineeverythign you stated is correct- Allmen is now attemptign to confuse hte issue by claiming that
The quote is about the source of information in evolution. If you disagree, take it up with Dembski. The question is whether evolutionary algorithms can solve problems, such as what changes will be beneficial.
What Dembski has conceded is that evolutionary algorithms can accumulate information.
To be completely honest, he is also suggesting that evolutionary searches are not efficient enough to account for complex structures in the available time, but that’s really something to be addressed by experiment.
But the fundamental question of where the information comes from is clearly stated by Dembski.
Information doesn't exist independent of the physcal machinery that gives rise to it, or holds it as a configuration of physical reality. One can not define the underlying physics out of any instance of reality. Any and every instance of information requires an underlying physical reality to support it. Without that underlying reality to support the instance, there can be no instance.
"In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of a computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or ‘source code’ used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.
Information theory relies on a generalized physical machine. You wrote down a diagram of that generalized physical machine, which is required for any and every instance of information to exist. The only independence there is here, is from any particular instance(s) of the underlying supporting physical machinery.
Note there's no point in mentioning that an examination of the computer's materials won't allow one to uncover any instance of information. The physical machinery of the computer can be examined though, and any instance of information that exists on it uncovered. The same goes for the machinery of mind that created the computer and any instantiaiton of software that exists, because of either machine.
"The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.’
Physical theory covers the required underly pohysics of the machinery that makes possible any and every instance of information. Without the underlying physics, there can be no information.
"Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information."
Reality can't be defined out of reality. If information is determined, it's simply determined. That says nothing about predictability.
" Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.” — George Gilder, “Evolution and Me,” National Review, July 17, 2006, p. 29f. "
The particulars of Biology covers the function, appearence and development of the physical machinery of the various organisms. All that's needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.
Behavior now is not influenced by future events. It may result from attempts to anticipate future events, but this is conceptually no different than anticipating the arc of a thrown object. Systems that learn or which are modified as a result of experience can anticipate regular phenomena, but they cannot foretell the future.
Both brains and genomes are modified by experience. Genomes are modified by the rather bloody method in which deleterious changes die or fail to reproduce.
Brains also employ this algorithm, though it only involves cells and synapses, and not the whole organism. As the saying goes, "Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement."
[[To be completely honest, he is also suggesting that evolutionary searches are not efficient enough to account for complex structures in the available time,]]
To be even more completely honest- he doubts that the whole of CSI IF it’s available in nature, can be transfered to species period.
[[But the fundamental question of where the information comes from is clearly stated by Dembski.]]
no it isn’t- He has stated that he’s not sure- whether it’s from outer space, or from nature or from soemwhere else undertmined. He can beleive anyhtign he likes, but reasonability does not indicate complete CSI can be transfered to genetic information- comunicaiton does NOT add infromaiton to cells- at best it can only ‘give an advantage’ to a species to allow the species an advantage IF nature works like the ‘hot warmer clode colder’ game he refers to. This should be obvious, but I guess he’s determined to explore this silly notion that nature is able to transfer info to biological systems via comunicaiton.
OK, but no one in biology claims that anything like that happens. Populations change as a result of accumulated copy errors. That's pretty much all that's necessary.
Apparently you absolutely missed or wish to ignore the fact that DNA “information” is also not actually “information” in any sense except in the context of proteins that contain as well as convey information.
[[Behavior now is not influenced by future events.]]
You are misunderstanding the issue- it is being argued that Naturally caused systems can not forsee future events and ‘select for’ changes which will ‘activate’ when future events are eventually realized. However, Metainfo can and does as evidenced by hte fact that cells contain info that can be activated to coordinate with other cell info when a change occures, and the metainfo conducts, directs, and controls this whole process to preserve hte fitness of hte species as best as possible. This is forward looking DESIGN, and it’s soemthing nature is incapable of creating- ESPECIALLY in myriad cases and at hte compelxity levels that myriad changes woudl produce.
Well let's see what Dembski actiually says, as opposed to what you claim he says:
In evolutionary search, a large number offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search giving rise to active information. As with the child’s game of finding a hidden object, we are being told with respect to the solution whether we are getting ”colder” or ”warmer” to the target.
Show me your experimental data. There are abundant laboratory examples of adaptations occurring without foresight.
When all you have is a hammer, problems look like nails.
What is the “message” of DNA if not a functioning protein? What else does DNA actually do functionally other than regulate and allow for the production of proteins?
Your wording IS sloppy as well as in error.
“Prions are protein molecules that have neither DNA nor RNA.”
Indeed ALL protein molecules have neither DNA nor RNA. You made a distinction that wasn't distinct and confuses the subject.
“Currently, prions are the suspected cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Mad Cow Disease. In the Shannon model, prions would be incoherent in the channel because they have no discernible message; that is, neither DNA nor RNA.”
Proteins are perfectly capable of having a discernible message. The process of protein signal transduction shows that proteins can both contain, alter, and convey information.
“Thus the prion would lead to channel or decoding malfunctions.”
It is not the lack of DNA or RNA or the lack of a message that leads to prions causing malfunction. It is a 3-D conformation that conveys the ‘information’ to other prion proteins to ‘fold THIS way, not THAT way’.
The way you wrote the paragraph ALL proteins would lead to channel or decoding malfunctions because ALL proteins “have no discernible message; that is, neither DNA nor RNA”, if one erroneously limits “discernible message” to only DNA or RNA.
And now think of all those times we've been lectured from the evo crowd that creationists don't talk about science in scientific terms...:)
Pay attention. I am quoting Bill Dembski, one of the two or three most respected ID theorists, and the mathematician responsible for most of the criticisms of evolution.
[[” Information is further defined by its independence from physical determination:
Information doesn’t exist independent of the physcal machinery that gives rise to it,]]
That’s not what is being stated- it is beign stated that info exists independent of outside determinations- it exists without being acted upon
[[”The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of ‘news.”
Physical theory covers the required underly pohysics of the machinery that makes possible any and every instance of information. Without the underlying physics, there can be no information.]]
Again, it is NOT the contqianment issue the statements refer to- the containment doesn’t act upon the information- it simply contains it- it takes outside infromaiton acting upon contained info to activate that info- Nature can not explain how either info can arise however, and htis is the cenrtral issue- not whether there needs to be a containment or not.
[[All that’s needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.]]
That’s a fien and noble undertaking, but it doesn’t explain how info can arise- especially hte metainfo being discussed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.