Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design
Mathematically true, or false? ...
Mathematictally close ..
My evaluation, considering Darwin's total avoidance of the word "evolution" in "Origin of the Species" (Jones, page 298), would be
Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution
Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Evolution
But — evolution of WHAT?
Evolution theory is the counter argument to design theory. That is, it purports to explain how the evident richness and diversity of living beings came to be. It says these are in effect "designed" [apparent design only] by random mutation and natural selection. IOW, the "designer" is random mutation + natural selection + time.
To say that random mutation + natural selection + time is what produces the vast diversity of living beings may well be an "evolution"; but it fails to explain convincingly HOW this happens, or WHY. This failure is especially glaring in light of recent important achievements in genetics, system theory, and information theory.
It makes for a lovely "intuitive" story; but is Darwin's theory really science?
I'll answer that question myself: Yes. But — 19th century science.
First, he points in the article I linked earlier in the thread that mutation is the equivalent of noise, which always, without exception, degrades the information. It is like tape hiss on a cassette tape. I am a professional recording engineer and a musician. I know what he is talking about. So do you, if you have ever listened to a cassette tape. He discusses a possible exception in digital recording - dither:
"And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out. And I’ve never met any engineer who ever said the signal could be better after you added noise to it. The only exception to this is something called dither which does add noise to the signal before [me: or after] it’s recorded, but that is done to neutralize distortions in the recording equipment. It’s “dither” in digital recording, and “bias” in analog recording. But it does not increase the information; it degrades the signal, albeit in a useful way.The challenge is:So I’m hunting for a flaw in this theory. Can anyone show that noise increases the useful information in a signal?"
“Show me an example where random mutation actually increases information”Second, with reference to any code, he points out in other articles that in every case where the origin of a code is known, it is always, without exception the product of a mind. The challenge is:
Provide one example of a code, defined as "a channel with an input alphabet A and an output alphabet B" that is not the product of a mind.
Cordially,