I started wondering how we got to this discussion anyway, since randomness isn’t part of the argument. My post on the existence of God is just the first part of the link (If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists). I see I said “information theory” in my first post, either from his use of it in the second part, or just throwing out the term without thinking. I read it again, and in the page I linked, he doesn’t use “information theory” in the first part (he does in the transcript, but I think you could delete that sentence without any loss of the argument). He uses the term more in part 2, but that isn’t the proof that God exists. He is an electrical engineer, as I am, and the argument is really using “the science of modern communications,” where I was coming from in my replies.
So, I’m not sure if my use is his of the words “information theory” got this started, but information theory is not needed to show God exists.
Information theory sort of sneaks in to the “no need for God” argument, from such observations as Morowitz’s, “The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system.” We mentioned sand-dune fields, which are ordered, not random, and how, thus, the flow of wind over sand imparted information to the dunes.
Information theory comes in as a rebuttal to the claim that the highly ordered system of life on earth could not have arisen “randomly.” Alas, there are still creationists who argue this. I’m not sure if our correspondent is taking it quite that far, but he is missing the point that information can be added to a system by random (or non-directed) means.
A metaphysicist might say that the orderly nature of sand dunes is already implicit in each grain of sand. I wouldn’t exactly disagree with that; I just wouldn’t know how to go about assessing it meaningfully. I never quite agreed with Sherlock Holmes, that, from one drop of water, a reasoner could deduce an Atlantic or a Niagara.
As I understand it, the science of modern communications is built in large part on information theory. And I have seen people claim that information theory says that information cannot be created, so that the fact that more complex creatures have more information in their genes than simpler one proves God exists.
BTW, I stumbled across a book yesterday by an atheist math professor who goes to creationist conferences for fun. I need to order it, but the part I read covered his first exposure to creationism, a pro-creationist column at Dartmouth. He got a lot of creationist books out, and read them, and not knowing much about biology found them somewhat convincing - until he got to the math part which he saw was utter bullshit. He then read books on evolution, and soon found that the rest was garbage too.
Anyhow, I’m not at all convinced that your mention of information theory in relation to the link was inappropriate.
OK, but the point of the first part is that there is no known natural explanation for the information in DNA. He details why he thinks this more in part 2, and that was what I addressed. We can stick to part 1, but I’m curious whether you will concede that part 2 of that page is not valid.
OK, back to part 1. It states:
Well, #4 on this list is just what we’ve been talking about. Adding randomness to a sequence can easily create information.
So much for part 1 as well.
Since both parts of that page’s arguments are invalid, is there anything that can show that God exists?
But it isn’t an “undiscovered law of physics.” It’s a completely well-known and understood law of physics. Adding randomness to a data-set increases its information.
Adding information, and then winnowing it down again by competition for survival (Darwinian selection) adds information, and then improves it, scrapping the bad bits and reinforcing the good ones. Once you get to descent with modification, and competition for survival, the information growth is self-sustaining.
Well, the candidate arguments for proof have revolved around the idea that even if God is unknowable, the fact of God is knowable (and necessary).
Despite all the wonderfully subtle metaphysical explorations for a logically precedent One from Plato to Plotinus to Augustine, there has still never been a satisfactory justification for the special pleading that God is required because everything must have a cause (except God). What remains is faith, and all attempts to justify faith with logic have hitherto failed.
That doesn’t reflect badly on faith. It just means faith, like everything interesting and important in the human condition, is pre-linguistic.
I would say the structure of sand dunes is like snowflakes and other examples of patterns, from the link I posted. The distinction is patterns vs. codes. There may be information in that sand dune, but it isn’t a code, and it has no meaning.
I decided to read the full transcript (may have a long time ago, but not recently). First, I don’t think he ever means the mathematical information theory when he says “information theory.” If you only read the executive summary for part 2, you may not really see where he’s coming from.
What he says for #4 (in the summary) is “could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code." When he says information there, I think it is a normal definition of information (that has meaning). Information theory may say randomness creates information, but it doesn’t create meaningful information. And this information theory is a mathematical thing, so does not have to relate to physics anyway. The “random mutation to do something useful” concept only exists in Darwinian evolution. The part 2 really deals with this part of it. From part 1, you need randomness not to add bits, but to create the code to begin with! The point is you can’t have a code without a mind to create it.
Randomness by itself does not, but randomness plus a filter does. Genetic algorithms start with purely random sequences and apply some sort of selection criteria. The result is not designed by anyone.
There is no concept in evolution of a random mutation to do something useful, which implies the intent of the mutation is utility. There are random mutations some of which might do something useful, and which get selected for because they foster reproductive success. Do you claim that useful mutations are impossible?
That’s a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. The scientific evidence does not indicate that the DNA code was created by a mind.
(Also, of course, this always brings us back to the question, where did the original mind come from, if an intelligent mind can only be created by an intelligent mind.)
No, for example DNA is more meaningful than the snowflake. Information theory may call randomness information, but it isn’t meaningful or useful.
I don’t know if useful mutations are possible. For example, the only mutations I know of for a new baby cause spontaneous abortion or a disease/condition such as Down’s syndrome. But what is the filter you speak of? If you mean natural selection, that doesn’t work, because that happens after the being is “born.” Evolution is saying the random mutation results in a new being, and then natural selection filters out the best ones. But even if you include spontaneous abortion in natural selection, that isn’t the filter you need to make this work. When you get some random DNA, the chances that it is a valid being are so small. Read in the transcript (http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/evolution-christian-atheist-zoo/) the example of turning EASY into FAST in something with 95 characters–just altering 2 letters and keeping the rest the same has very low probability. The shortest DNA is much longer than that. The probabilities are so small to get what you need that it is impossible.
Science and philosophy are connected. The assumptions of science are philosophical. The conclusion that DNA came from a mind comes from:
All known codes come from a mind.
DNA is a code.
Therefore, DNA comes from a mind.
(It is a lot easier to consider God to be eternal than for matter to be.)
Something he doesn’t get into (maybe felt it wasn’t needed for his argument), is the rest of the cell. I think of the cell as a kind of machine. If you look at animations of the cell (for example http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html), they look like machines. The DNA is a programming for it. Without the rest of the cell, the DNA is worthless (DNA doesn’t turn into a cell on its own). The machine of the cell is what interprets the DNA, like a computer reads a program or a JPEG file (not sure which is a better analogy). Do you really think randomness can turn one program or JPEG into another that is anything other than a defect?
The test would need to be structured so that you could duplicate the word “Easy” and it would have no effect on the advertisement’s success. Genes get duplicated sometimes, and the creature with two copies does just fine. Then one of those genes doesn’t have selective pressure to stay the same - it can mutate and do something else without causing harm to the creature. So again, with your example, if you duplicated the word “Easy” and then made random changes to the copy, it would need to have no deleterious effect on the survivability.
Just making the changes on one individual wouldn’t be appropriate - you’d need to do this in parallel on millions, billions, or hundreds of billions of ads, then see what survives.
You’d need to do the “natural selection” filter after each generation, and then do it not five times, but hundreds of billions of times.
You see, the chemistry in the cell, which is the complexity that you’re trying to challenge here, went through this process with just single-celled organisms, or simple amalgamations of them, for three billion years before more complex animals started to emerge. Looking at it this way, there were three billion years of countless organisms competing, and reproducing however often single-celled organisms reproduce, for something like three billion years. Then the cell development got to a very advanced state, one which could support more complex animals, and in the relatively recent few hundred million years you’ve seen an explosion of diversity. But this explosion is all based on that cellular machinery which took forever to evolve.
Surely you’re kidding? Do you not see the glaring flaw in this syllogism? Have you heard of “begging the question”?
Survival, however, is very useful, and DNA “codes” for that.
Observed almost daily by lab science.
I watched Henry Morris perform the same antic. He proved that random DNA could never be assembled that coded for a meaningful cell. His error was two-fold: first, he used “1” as the numerator in his very small fraction – i.e., he calculated the chance of random DNA coding for the fiftieth retinal cell from the left in the right eye of a giraffe named Sandy, living in the Philadelphia Zoo in 1926. It seemed to have escaped him that there might be other living cells!
Secondly, he (and you) overlook the gradual part of DNA evolution. It accumulates information slowly, over time.
Yes, most mutations are not useful. And evolution scraps them quickly. Many are spontaneously aborted. Many happen to code for traits that are not helpful: a missing leg; severe myopia; skimpy fur; etc. However, a few code for traits that turn out to be helpful – ability to synthesize vitamin C (cats and dogs do this; humans don’t!) – and these mutations are preserved in a preferential fashion, as they give the individual a survival advantage.
You are repeating ignorant creationist crapola, citing from web sites that are disingenuous, if not formally dishonest.
All creationists use foolish syllogisms.
You have just used a foolish syllogism.
Therefore: you and creationists have something in common.
The major premise is false, and the minor premise is disputable, because you are using the word “code” in a way as to carry unwarranted connotative meanings.
Nope; God doesn’t get a free pass from the rules of existence by your unfounded claim. I’d be interested if you could present some actual evidence that God is eternal. At the moment, you aren’t even managing to present evidence that God exists at all, let alone “forever.” (By the way, can you define “forever?”)
Yep: if given enough time, and an incremental process, and especially if using the filter of survival/reproductive selection.
ETA: Thanks, x-ray vision for the nifty article on DNA and codes!
What meaning does DNA hold for the non-sentient? I repeat; the meaning of DNA, or a computer file, or a Harry Potter book is inferred entirely by the human brain. There is no intrinsic “meaning” for anything outside of human consciousness.