evolution question

by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  GB: Just a few clarifying questions before i can give a more weighty critique.
  
  You claim that life (DNA?) contain a property you call "information", and evolution cannot increase this quantity in the genotype. Do i understand you correctly?
  
  For this to be meaningfull you need to explain what "information" is. We can agree this task is up to you.
  
  I attempted the qualitative definition that information is something along "strands of DNA which are translated into proteins which does something usefull for the organism".
  
  * can we agree that if that is our definition of "information", then evolution CAN produce "information" per the nylon example? (if no, please state why you do not feel this is so).
  
  In other words, you have a different definition of information which we need to pin down. I have some problems making sence of what you write.
  
  You wrote:
  
  "(..) "information" is a function of observed response by a "mind". (..) The "information" isn't the sequence of DNA read, but rather the "minds" of the intercellular processes as these respond after having read different sequences and interpreting the coding as requiring certain actions."
  So information is not a property of DNA, but a property of a set of events in a molecular machinary as it interpret DNA.
  We imagine we have a molecular machinary in mind (a cell), and in order to determine how much information is present /in the machinary/, we observe how it operate when interpreting DNA. Do i understand this correctly?
  
  We can (loosely at least) talk of /degrees of information/ by talking of degrees of complexity in the /range of potential behaviour/ when the machinary is intepreting DNA. I hope i get this correct as well, otherwise please be very specific how we determine if one system has gained (or lost) information compared to another.
  
  Now this is where i get confused:
  
  "The "information" I'm referring to which has limitation in its production is/are the codes being interpreted. (...) [the nylon example] did "make" information in the sense of rearranging the codes and reading these with its "mind" and responding differently, however it was limited to the codes present."
  
  I am confused for two reasons. First off the "information" which are limited are now certain /codes/, which seem to run contrary to the initial definition. Why was information initially a "function of observed response by a "mind"", and now a code? What is a code in this context?
  
  Secondly, i dont really understand why it is "limited to the codes present". Perhaps this is because code is not defined, but in the nylon-example evolution did exactly introduce DNA to which the machinary reacted in a novel way (produced a new enzyme). If this "code" was allready present, where was it? Are all "codes" present to which the system can readily be imagined to evolve in a few steps? if so, how many steps? and since any enzyme can be constructed in a finite number of evolutionary steps, what limitation is there?

  The following is even more confusing:
  
  Simple rearrangements need to use the codes these have at their disposal. If certain codes which might be interpreted differently if these were actually present simply cannot just miraculously appear by any random walk.
  
  First off mutations are not themselves random but limited to certain operations and this need to be addressed. Second off, the sentence does not make grammatical sense.
  
  At the end of the day:
  
  * How do you define information, specifically, how do we understand two systems to have different amount of information? If information is a function of the range of responses a system can take when given DNA, is the criteria for "more information" then not met when the system evolve into being able to create a new enzyme which does something new and make it more adapted to its enviroment?
  
  * If we want "information" to carry the idea of /meaning/, ultimately the information has meaning about the enviroment. in that sence i do not understand why the cell did not effectively learn a few bits of information about its enviroment (how to digest nylon), hence gaining that information.
• 

  outsmartthesystem

  Well.......this thread has accomplished the opposite of what I was hoping for
• 

  NewChapter

  LOL, what were you hoping for? Did you not realize that evolution is one of those hot buttons that pull us all out of the woodwork?

  NC
• 

  gubberningbody

  bohm,

  No. I'm arguing that evolution is an engineered non-random process. I believe, though I don't have it all laid out before me that the mechanisms suggested for so long a time, namely random mutations sieved out through natural selection is not sufficient to the task. It seems to me that a bit of a lamarkian process is at work here and some of the recent studies dealing with epigenetics seems to suggest something more is happening here. More work needs to be done beyond waggoning in the circle and engaging in old-time-religion propaganda techniques.

  Not this isn't the thread addressing the subject of mins as it relates to various phenomena, but it seems at least tangentially related to not that we object to mind being present in a process, but without any more evidence than mere correlation and personal preference we opt easily to arguing that we have free will and minds of our own.

  The truth is that we can't know that anyone has a mind, but that all these are just behaviors interpreted to suggest the evidence of mind.

  One might say a la Crick..."One must always remind himself that humans, as clever as they may seem, simply do not have minds. These are simply complex chemical reactions occuring over time and space. All these are products of brains."
• 

  Caedes

  GB,

  Still incapable of answering the question?
• 

  bohm

  Since you have abandoned your initial process of defining "information" and showing how evolution cannot increase it i will also let that subject drop and focus on the real issue.

  There are two competing hypothesis on this thread for biodiversity:

  • evolution
  • the "mind"-idea you present.

  In the absence of any evidence, the best we can do is to say: "we do not know where biodiversity came from".

  You do not offer any evidence to support your idea. I have presented what i believe is evidence in favor of the evolution hypothesis, but that is irrelevant: you are not correct per default any less than evolution is.

  Before you present evidence, and perhaps even more pressing, make it clear your idea is well-defined and make predictions, there is no reason why you or we should regard your idea as true or even particular likely. Even if you think evolution is entirely hopeless (and i seriously suggest you read up on basic information theory, particular how it relate to evolution, before you consider that idea as particular sound), that does not change a thing: The default is "we do not know".

  For the record, i hope you understand that when you accuse other of "waggoning in the circle and engaging in old-time-religion propaganda techniques", that sound a lot like "waggoning in the circle and engaging in old-time-religion propaganda techniques".
• 

  wobble

  What a great thread ! apologists for anti-science views are like WT apologists, won't answer a straight question or two !

  I like Cofty's comment that "we" interbred with Neanderthals, we ?, I do remember a particularly hairy girlfriend from my youth, but I am still not admitting to inter-breeding !

  Thanks for the book and site sugestions, I have read some, but not all, and Mrs Wobble could do with reading some of them too, thanks all.
• 

  outsmartthesystem

  Yeah I seriously underestimated how touchy this topic would be.

  I thought I might get just a few responses with a link or two. 'member....I am a newbie to this concept and there is a LOT to learn. Reading this thread gave me an instant headache. :)
• 

  NewChapter

  LOL OSTS---don't let it worry you. Now is not the time to go into complex genetics or philosophical arguments. Go ahead and learn the basics first, and you can build from there. You really don't need all that to get the concept---some have just gone deeper with their studies.

  NC
• 

  gubberningbody

  Bohm -

  I'm pretty clear about what constitutes "information".

  Information is not simply a pattern.

  Information requires a code for an exchange.

  Information is what a mind uses in making decisions.

  You contend then, that no mind exists in evolutionary processes, whereas I do.

  You contend, that information increases in these systems.

  I agree.

  However, in your language usage seems logically inconsistent.

  Evolution is not simply the laws of physics operating over the time-space continuum.

  In your view, though you haven't stated it specifically, there is no information increase in any process, there are only signals and increases in percieved complexity.

  Complexity in and of itself is our view of what we perceive, it isn't necessarily "out there", it is our peculiar arrangement of what we see.

  I contend, that what we see is mind at work, and that - and now I'm repeating myself, that the suggested mechanism of random mutation as a novelty generating device is not sufficient to the task.

  Something else is needed to account for the increases in complexity.

  Evolution properly understood has to do with increases in differential reproductive rates over time. It's suggested that random mutations can produce the needed sequences to move a virus from 5,000 nucleotides to a human with 3,000,000,000 and this all within a 200,000,000 year period.

  That simply doesn't work out by any random walk.

  The math doesn't work.

  Yes, evolution has taken place, but not by way of random mutations.

  I don't know what's driven the changes, but I've spent decades reading material on this and every time I see a new book out on the subject I take the time to see if anything new has taken place in the thinking, but I have yet to find anyone suggest anything having any remote possibility of getting the job done.

  I read Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphogenetic fields years ago, and though it is "out there" as far as the mainstream is concerned, it's more interesting than hearing the same mathematically unconvincing explanation over and over again.

  For the record, I'm not religious at all. I'm suspicious about the possibility of mind as a substance existing outside the material realm, but that's about it at the moment. As far as any deity is concerned, I can't even begin to imagine a situation which could justify the creation of a world like this one as it is predicated on continuous consumption, but then again most apologists I've encountered have suggested that the defect is my own.

  In any case, I remain unconvinced that mutations can fuel evolution or that they've done so.

  I'm also not certain what anyone hopes to gain by "triumphing" over my "ignorance" or my perceived "perversity".

  Whatever.