“...to remain as fit as possible- without error correction, species (and programs) can NOT thrive ...”
Gene repair and protein reconstruction are not “error correction” though that expression is sometimes used metaphorically.
Maintaining the integrity of digitally transmitted information (actually it is not maintained—but recreated when received) has nothing to do with biological functions, which are not digital. Shannon codes are not at all that mysterious, and there are actually more reliable ways to accomplish the same thing—the most reliable of all being triple redundancy—but it is very “expensive” in terms of hardware and bandwidth.
Information theory is another animal altogether. It has nothing to do with “intelligence” or “knowledge.” Only with the relationships between bandwidths and noise. There are analog applicatoins but it is generally digital. Ah well!
Error correction is not needed at all for many computers and programs. It is only needed where there are known transmission problems, which can be solved in other ways, also.
Hank
[[Gene repair and protein reconstruction are not “error correction” though that expression is sometimes used metaphorically.]]
It is error correction- biologically, a cell is pre-equipted with code that anticipates errors due ot mutations and dividing errors
[[Shannon codes are not at all that mysterious,]]
Again, we’re not talking about Code when discussing Shannon theory- we’re talking about the comunicaiton mechanisms of code- about the sender and receiver- not what hte sender sends
[[Information theory is another animal altogether. It has nothing to do with “intelligence” or “knowledge.”]]
First- noone said information is intelligence but you- secondly, it takes intelligence to construct information-
[[Gene repair and protein reconstruction are not “error correction” though that expression is sometimes used metaphorically.]]
“Error correction mechanisms are common in biology and widely thought of as endemic to that realm to the exclusion of the quantum. However, the evidence would seem to side with error correction mechanisms being very much a part of the atom and having been part of the quantum world since the beginning of time. If anything, the biological would appear to be a younger sibling to, derivative from, and homologous with the quantum insofar at the attributes of error correction mechanisms are concerned.
Showing their degree of efficiency, Lesli Orgel writes that: “DNA polymerases make use of elaborate error-correction mechanisms that may cut the error rate to below 10-8.”1 Of another occurrence of biological correction mechanisms, von Neumann wrote:
It is easy to note that the number of nerve actuation’s which occur in a normal lifetime must be of the order of 10^20. Obviously, during this chain of events, there never occurs a malfunction which cannot be corrected by the organism itself, without any significant outside intervention. The system must, therefore, contain the necessary arrangements to diagnose errors as they occur, to readjust the organism so as to minimize the effects of errors.2...
The atomic error correction mechanism is found in the delicate balance maintained down to the level of nanometers – a level of control only few if any humans will ever master. What we find is that atomic forces do indeed work as error correction mechanisms and in effect function in a manner as gargantuan manmade particle accelerators do (or – uncannily – vice versa). Where it is the electromagnetic force mediating between the protons of the nucleus and electrons of the shells – counter-balanced against the nuclear force – subatomic particles maintain their delicate orbits. So exact are these mechanisms that protons not destroyed through cataclysmic events such as supernovas have existed virtually unchanged since the big bang. Error correction mechanisms, then, evidently must reside within nucleons monitoring the behavior of quarks. “
http://mightymall.com/1st3seconds/errorcm.html
[[Error correction is not needed at all for many computers and programs.]]
Ah- but try introducing error into hte programs- noise- and see where it leads- because htis is what macroevolutionists must deal with- ascerting that nature somehow was able to evovle error correction naturally without hte help of intelligence guiding the ssystem, or without hte need for metainformaiton anticipating future errors. The degree of error correction present in biology is staggaring, but apparently, according ot macroevolutionists, we’re to beleive species ‘evolved the capability to correct itself without hte help of itnelligence?