Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution cannot explain the information in life

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
F

flinx

Guest
Another huge hole in the theory of evolution is the fact that evolution has no explanation for the coded information that is present in all living organisms. Without the coded information present in the DNA of every living thing, life simply would not be possible. But the naturalistic processes of evolution have no observed ability to create that coded information.

Now the genome of every organism contains all the instructions for manufacturing the molecular machinery it uses for building itself up, for repairing damage, for managing waste, and for maintaining all the chemical processes that are essential for its existence. In addition, it also contains all the information for reproducing the organism, which, all on its own, is an achievement that mankind has not been able to match in any machine we have ever built. A simple cell is more complex than any machine, or factory, or complex of factories ever created by man.

In the human genome there are step-by-step instructions for building an organism that begins as just a single cell and ends up as a functioning machine with an estimated 50 trillion integrated and interdependent cells. Here’s a puzzle: how do you store step-by-step instructions for creating a machine with 50 trillion integrated parts using only the 3 billion base pairs of the human genome? Even if it were possible for each base pair to be an instruction in itself you wouldn’t come even remotely close to being able to do it. It’s obvious that the human genome must use data compression techniques that are far beyond anything that humanity can even dream of matching. Or else there are other sources in the cell for those step-by-step instructions, which we aren’t even aware of yet. Up to now mankind has managed to develop a fair understanding of how genes are used to manufacture the proteins that do the constructive work in the cell, but so far we really don’t have a clue how the control programs that build an organism work. The control programs that are present in a fertilized egg of a human describe what the physical structure of the human body will be, and how cells will differentiate into the various organs of the body and in what order they will do it, and how all the completed organs will communicate with each other in order to maintain the body in equilibrium. We are only just beginning the process of understanding how those control programs are stored and executed. It’s obvious that we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface in our understanding of the human genome.

So it is self-evident that information, at an extremely high level of complexity, is absolutely essential for life to exist at all. Now here’s the big problem for evolution – evolution is completely dependent on only naturalistic processes of matter and energy to evolve everything in the living world we inhabit, and yet coded information is not made up of either matter or energy. Coded information is a third fundamental property of the universe that is completely separate from both matter and energy. It is possible for coded information to be inscribed upon matter, as in the printed words of a book, or it can be inscribed upon energy, as in modulated radio waves, but coded information itself is a non-material entity that is the result of a cognitive mental process.

Since coded information is a non-material entity, the production of new information is not subject to any of the laws of science. There is no law of science known that will cause matter or energy to give rise to coded information. What observable science actually shows is that the production of new coded information is only subject to the will of an intellect. In order for new coded information to appear, an intelligent agent must consciously choose to create that information, or else that intelligence must consciously design and create a machine that can be programmed to produce new coded information. But the naturalistic laws of matter and energy do not initiate or control that conscious mental process.

To illustrate the non-material nature of information, suppose you had two books: one book filled with random characters and one book filled with the works of Shakespeare. There isn’t any scientific test or measurement that you could perform on either of the books that would tell you which book contained information and which book contained random junk. The only way to determine which book contained information would be to have a human intelligence, who understands the English language, read both books and tell you which book contained Shakespeare’s writings. Only an intelligent mind can ultimately create coded information and only an intelligent mind, or a machine created by an intellect, can recognize and interpret coded information. The processes of materialistic naturalism are completely incapable of producing coded information. In the entire history of science no process of matter and no process of energy has ever been observed to spontaneously create coded information. The only thing known to science that can create coded information is an intelligent mind.

So the theory of evolution really has no explanation at all for the information that is inherent to life. But I’m sure that some evolutionist may respond by bringing up the well-known analogy of the group of monkeys randomly typing away at a bank of typewriters. The evolutionist might say, “Just give the monkeys enough time and even though those monkeys are only typing random characters they will still end up creating the entire works of Shakespeare just by chance. All you have to do is give random physical processes lots and lots of available time and then those processes could spontaneously create information without any intelligent intervention.â€Â

Unfortunately for the evolutionist, the typing monkey illustration is fatally flawed. The flaw is in the fact that the evolutionist is assuming that a coding system would already be in place to store the information, namely, the English language. It is impossible to store or transmit information without a coding system already in place. And both the sender and the receiver of the information must have previously agreed on the details and structure of the code. Without the coding system of the English language already in place it would be impossible for the monkeys to type any meaningful information. Just imagine what would happen if the typewriters that the monkeys were using could only type out Arabic characters. Then it wouldn’t matter how many trillions of years the monkeys typed away, they would never create any information that was understandable to someone who only knew the English language. Without an agreed upon coding system there can be no information stored. The big problem for evolutionists is that materialistic naturalism has the same problem with coding systems as it has with information. There is no known naturalistic process that has ever been observed to spontaneously create a coding system. The only thing known to science that can create a coding system is an intelligent mind.

Now I’m sure we all know that the genome of every living organism contains a coding system along with huge amounts of information stored within that coding system. Every cell is actually an intricate factory that continuously runs under automatic control. Living cells are examples of an information system containing a non-intelligent sender and a non-intelligent receiver. This type of information system requires the greatest amount of intelligence from the agent who designed the system. The control systems of the cell must contain all the programs necessary for dealing with every eventuality the cell will encounter during its lifespan. Systems must be in place to provide all the resources of matter and energy that the cell will ever require. The cell must know how to maintain itself in equilibrium while the organism is healthy. It must know how to react when the organism is dehydrated or starved. It must know how to react when the organism is attacked by disease. It must know how to interact with other cells within an organ and with other organs in the body. It must know how to reproduce itself. It must even know when to give up its life for the greater good of the organism. When a cell is no longer needed it goes through a process of programmed cell death known as apoptosis. During this process the cell first shrinks and then fragments into smaller membrane bound bodies that are then recycled for other uses. Apoptosis is essential to the development of the embryo and the differentiation of its tissues. Without the process of programmed cell death all multi-cellular life would be impossible.

So there is no way for functional living organisms to exist without access to volumes of information that have been provided in advance by their designer. So where did the coding system and all that stored information come from? Can you believe that materialistic naturalism was the designer behind this system? Materialistic processes have no observed ability whatsoever of creating non-material entities like coding systems or meaningful information within those coding systems.

In his book, In the Beginning was Information, Werner Gitt presents several universal laws that apply to coded information. And these laws apply 100 per cent of the time. There has never been an observed exception to these laws of information. Here they are:

1) Information cannot be set up, stored, or transmitted without using a code.
2) A code is always the result of a free and deliberate convention. It is a uniquely defined set of symbols that has been agreed upon by both sender and receiver.
3) There can be no information without a sender.
4) Any given chain of coded information points to a mental source.
5) Coded information cannot exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will.
6) All coded information involves five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
Statistics – a fixed, agreed upon character set
Syntax – a pre-agreed grammar and word structure
Semantics – the message must have meaning. It conveys an idea from the sender
Pragmatics – the message causes the recipient to stimulate, initialize or implement some action
Apobetics – the sender intends a result to be achieved in, or by the recipient
7) Coded information can never originate in statistical processes. For example, a computer program designed to construct sentences using a dictionary and English grammar would never produce true information. Every true message sent by a sender will always convey some meaning to the receiver. The sender always intends that his message will achieve some result. But the computer program would never be able to add meaning to a message.

So in the end here are several things we can conclude with as much certainty as all the observable, repeatable, and testable evidence of science provides:
1) We know that no living organism can exist without the presence of encyclopedic volumes of coded information in its genome.
2) We know that no naturalistic process of matter or energy has ever been observed to spontaneously create coded information.
3) We know that the only thing observed by science that can spontaneously create coded information is an intelligent mind.
4) From the information laws above we can conclude that the information of life originated from a mental source, an intelligent Sender who consciously chose to create that information in order to produce His intended result – the creation of functional living organisms.
5) We can also conclude that the statistical processes of trial and error, which is all that evolution has available to it, would never be able to produce the coded information in the genome of the first cell.
Based on these observations, creationists can feel fully justified in believing that all the information in living organisms came from the mind of God. The laws of coded information give full support to the creation model.

Of course, evolutionists can still choose to believe that naturalism brought about the information of life. But they can’t claim that that belief is based on observable science. Their only option is to believe by faith that materialistic naturalism is capable of producing the coded information present in every living thing. In Hebrews 11:1, the Bible says that faith “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seenâ€Â. This certainly applies to the position that evolutionists find themselves in. They hope with all their hearts that naturalistic processes can spontaneously create life from non-living chemicals, and then design the coded information within that life which is essential for the reproduction and maintenance of all living organisms. They must hope in spite of the observable and testable evidence against their belief system. That hope, that faith, is the only evidence they can hold on to when they choose to believe that naturalism brought about life.
 
:roll:

Another huge hole in the theory of evolution is the fact that evolution has no explanation for the coded information that is present in all living organisms. Without the coded information present in the DNA of every living thing, life simply would not be possible. But the naturalistic processes of evolution have no observed ability to create that coded information.

Not yet, anyway, flinx. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
 
I think all of you should read A Case for a Creator, and A Case For Faith by Lee Strobel...they're both very reassuring books that somewhat clear up all of this creation/evolution controversy.
 
srry but your theory ther eis 100% flawed. You said its impossible because it is unlikely for that code ever just to be made perfect.

the universe is infinite (as so believed) which means there are an infinite amount of planets, with an infinite amount of chances for this to occur.

guess what it did.
 
I believe that laboratory experiments have been performed in which some elements + compounds are dissolved in water. This "soup" is then zapped with electricity. The intent is to reproduce early earth conditions (the electrical zaps represent lightning). The results: amino acids (complex molecules that are found in organic compounds). I hope that I have the basic facts right.

The point: The original elements / compounds dissolved in the water can be conceived as conveying information - implementing a code. Why? Because the essence of information lies in "differences that make a difference". Just as a transistor in one state can represent a binary 0 and in another state can represent a binary 1, the distinctive features of the elements of the soup can be said to convey information, by simple virtue of their distinctiveness from each other.

When the electricity is applied, "nature" acts as an "interpreter" - new chemical products are generated. These, again, can be viewed as conveyors or bearers of information, in virtue of their distinctiveness. So it seems that natural processes do indeed act on information and modify it.

Further work needs to be done, but I think that the above is part of an argument to the effect that nature can indeed implement codes and then "interpret" them.
 
Hawkanomics said:
I think all of you should read A Case for a Creator, and A Case For Faith by Lee Strobel...they're both very reassuring books that somewhat clear up all of this creation/evolution controversy.

Lee Strobel is a moron.
 
Hey, all!

Lee Strobel is a moron.

Wow! That's an impressive, thoughtful, intelligent response -- NOT!
:o :roll:

Great post, flinx!

In Christ, Aiki.
 
aiki said:
Hey, all!

Lee Strobel is a moron.

Wow! That's an impressive, thoughtful, intelligent response -- NOT!
:o :roll:

Great post, flinx!

In Christ, Aiki.

If you've read his books, they speak for themselves.
 
In his book, In the Beginning was Information, Werner Gitt presents several universal laws that apply to coded information. And these laws apply 100 per cent of the time. There has never been an observed exception to these laws of information. Here they are:
Werner Gitt made up his own information theory because the existing ones didn't suit his purposes. It basically boils down to "i define that information is something artificial, therefore it doesn't come from natural sources and evolution is wrong"

However, his entire line of reasoning is instantly broken by a single beneficial mutation. These have been observed to happen.

His point 4 is also compromised by any measuring instrument of your choice. They generate information - measurements - completely without a mental source.

The others are flawed too, but i'm too lazy right now ;)
 
aiki said:
Great post, flinx!
Thanks aiki. I always hope that at least a few of my posts will be an encouragement to the creationists who visit this forum.


Asimov said:
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
But complete absence of evidence is a great way of showing what a rickety, half-baked theory evolution actually is.


peace4all said:
the universe is infinite (as so believed) which means there are an infinite amount of planets, with an infinite amount of chances for this to occur.
Actually, even evolutionists don’t believe that the Big Bang created an infinite amount of matter or an infinite amount of energy. And there certainly hasn’t been an infinite amount of time for trial and error processes to try and come up with non-material entities like coded information.

It is commonly estimated that there are only ten to the eightieth power atomic sized particles in the universe. This puts an upper limit on the maximum number of trial and error events that evolution could even attempt. William Dembski calls this the universal probability bound. He calculates that if any specified event has a probability of less than one in ten to the one hundred and fiftieth power then it can be considered a practical impossibility that that event could ever occur during the history of the universe.

The calculation of the universal probability bound is quite simple. The maximum number of transitions between one state and another that can occur during a second is known as the Planck time and is equal to 10^45 transitions. The number of atomic sized particles in the universe is equal to 10^80. If the universe were actually 20 billion years old and you had a billion times that period to work with, you would only have 10^25 seconds available to you. If you multiply all that out the absolute maximum number of trial and error events you could possibly perform during a billion times the history of the universe would be 10^45 x 10^80 x 10^25 = 10^150.

It can be easily shown that there is less chance than 1 in 10^150 for a trial and error process to even correctly specify the chemical bonds necessary to construct an RNA chain of only 100 nucleotides length. That 100-nucleotide RNA strand could only code for a protein of 33 peptides, which wouldn’t even be long enough for the protein to fold into a tertiary structure with any functionality. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the fact that RNA chains do not form spontaneously at any temperature.

There isn’t enough time in the history of the universe for life to get started through a trial and error process, which is all that evolution has going for it.


Drew said:
The point: The original elements / compounds dissolved in the water can be conceived as conveying information - implementing a code. Why? Because the essence of information lies in "differences that make a difference". Just as a transistor in one state can represent a binary 0 and in another state can represent a binary 1, the distinctive features of the elements of the soup can be said to convey information, by simple virtue of their distinctiveness from each other.

When the electricity is applied, "nature" acts as an "interpreter" - new chemical products are generated. These, again, can be viewed as conveyors or bearers of information, in virtue of their distinctiveness. So it seems that natural processes do indeed act on information and modify it.
The molecules in any origin-of-life experiment follow the fixed laws of chemistry, the fixed laws of thermodynamics and the fixed laws of probability. These experiments have never gotten beyond the amino acid and nucleotide stage. Origin-of-life experiments have no observed ability to create specified complexity, which is what proteins and DNA/RNA consist of. No origin-of-life experiment has ever produced a functional protein or an information-carrying polynucleotide chain.


jwu said:
Werner Gitt made up his own information theory because the existing ones didn't suit his purposes. It basically boils down to "i define that information is something artificial, therefore it doesn't come from natural sources and evolution is wrong"
Werner Gitt simply confines his theory to the branch of information science concerned with coded information. Is jwu actually claiming that Werner Gitt made up the concept of coded information just to foil the theory of evolution? Every single one of us is familiar with the concept of coded information since we all use coded information whenever we speak to another person or write something down.

And every living thing is dependent on coded information for building the proteins that are essential to life. I’m sure that most of us are aware that the genes in the DNA of all organisms are actually coded strings made up of four different nucleotides. The nucleotides are stored in 3-letter triplets called condons. Every codon corresponds to a specific amino acid that will be used to build the protein that the gene codes for. In order to make a protein the DNA double helix is unzipped and an enzyme called RNA polymerase transcribes the nucleotide code onto a synthesized strand of messenger RNA. Here is a table showing the possible three letter condons present in messenger RNA and the amino acid each codon codes for.
code.gif

The strand of messenger RNA is then sent to one of the ribosomes, which are the protein synthesizing machines of the cell. Ribosomes attach themselves to the strand of messenger RNA and read through the strand one condon at a time. They build the needed protein one amino acid at a time using a group of molecules known as transfer RNA. There is at least one transfer RNA molecule for every type of amino acid used in protein production. Every transfer RNA molecule has an anticodon sequence at one end that matches a particular condon on the messenger RNA. At the other end of the transfer RNA an amino acid is attached that corresponds to the coded condon triplet. To construct the protein the ribosome picks a transfer RNA molecule that matches the condon it is reading and plucks the amino acid off its tail end and adds it to the developing peptide chain.

So it can be seen that coded information is used not only to store protein synthesis information in the cell’s DNA, it is also used to transmit that information to the ribosome. The ribosome then reads that coded information in order to construct a protein.

Life simply cannot exist without coded information. But naturalism has no observed ability to create that coded information.

jwu said:
However, his entire line of reasoning is instantly broken by a single beneficial mutation. These have been observed to happen.
A beneficial change in the genetic code provides no explanation at all for how that code came to be in the first place. Codes and coded information are not even made out of matter or energy, which is all that the naturalistic processes of evolution have to work with. Jwu really should put on his thinking cap.

jwu said:
His point 4 is also compromised by any measuring instrument of your choice. They generate information - measurements - completely without a mental source.
And did that measuring instrument arise spontaneously through a trial and error process of evolution? No, measuring instruments are tools created by an intellect. And they report their measured data in a code. A code that can only be interpreted by an intellect or by another machine created by an intellect. Which just proves the point that “any given chain of code information points to a mental sourceâ€Â.
 
This is stupid. Flinx: all mutations increase the entropy of the code and thus increase the information. Learn some basic information theory and you'd figure that out.
 
Sure. Here's one way it works.

Genes are often duplicated, with a second, identical gene produced. Then one of them is mutated to form a new protein. The resulting organism has more information than ones that preceded it.
 
flinx said:
Another huge hole in the theory of evolution is the fact that evolution has no explanation for the coded information that is present in all living organisms. .
Its not a hole. The study of evolution is ongoing. Just because something might not be known now does not mean it will never be known.
 
Evolution is still full of all sorts of holes. It seems that whenever a new evolutionary discovery is made, it brings up more questions than answers. However, it's the best scientific way to explain the whole history of life on earth. There will always be mysteries and unanswered questions, but just because evolution can't answer absolutey everything doesn't mean that evolution should be thrown out the window. As much as we try to dig up the past, some of it is gone forever, and we're left to try to make sense out of what still remains.
 
philbo said:
Evolution is still full of all sorts of holes. It seems that whenever a new evolutionary discovery is made, it brings up more questions than answers. However, it's the best scientific way to explain the whole history of life on earth. There will always be mysteries and unanswered questions, but just because evolution can't answer absolutey everything doesn't mean that evolution should be thrown out the window. As much as we try to dig up the past, some of it is gone forever, and we're left to try to make sense out of what still remains.

You bring up a good point. Religion, Christianity itself, has just as many if not more holes than evolution.

When confronted with this "holes", the basic response is:

"We cannot know God's wisdom, nor fathom his reasons".


I find it very telling that although we, evolutionists, admit that not every "i" has been dotted nor "t" crossed in the theory of life, are ridiculed for such "admissions".

Yet often Christians immediately resort to the abovementioned "out" when confronted with a rational or reasonal objection.

(It should be noted here that this specific reference is into non-evolution believing Christian, not Christians in general)
 
flinx said:
Drew said:
The point: The original elements / compounds dissolved in the water can be conceived as conveying information - implementing a code. Why? Because the essence of information lies in "differences that make a difference". Just as a transistor in one state can represent a binary 0 and in another state can represent a binary 1, the distinctive features of the elements of the soup can be said to convey information, by simple virtue of their distinctiveness from each other.

When the electricity is applied, "nature" acts as an "interpreter" - new chemical products are generated. These, again, can be viewed as conveyors or bearers of information, in virtue of their distinctiveness. So it seems that natural processes do indeed act on information and modify it.

The molecules in any origin-of-life experiment follow the fixed laws of chemistry, the fixed laws of thermodynamics and the fixed laws of probability. These experiments have never gotten beyond the amino acid and nucleotide stage. Origin-of-life experiments have no observed ability to create specified complexity, which is what proteins and DNA/RNA consist of. No origin-of-life experiment has ever produced a functional protein or an information-carrying polynucleotide chain.

Life simply cannot exist without coded information. But naturalism has no observed ability to create that coded information.

You may well be right in claiming that certain levels of "complexity" have never been observed in experiments. However, my point was that nature can and does transform information. Remember, information does not necessarily require a "designer" in order to produce effects in the world. You seem to be assuming that only "hand-crafted" information states can produce changes that lead to increased complexity and ultimately to life. I am not yet convinced - why could not random variations and "selection" effects yield more complexity? The earth is not a closed system - energy from the Sun can cause decreases in entropy.

I still think that it is clear that nature produces and modifies "codes". Information exists wherever there are "differences that make a difference" and the processes of nature is the "engine" that actualizes these differences. When that zap of electricity takes place, changes do indeed take place. It is entirely conceivable that even though these changes are undirected, they produce new information states. Nature "experiments" and it seems entirely plausible that these experiments can lead to increased complexity. Whether this mechanism is sufficient for the creation of intelligent life is another question altogether. As I believe you suggest, it is possible that there may not be "enough time" for this. I have some thoughts about this but must stop for now (the wife is about to slap me silly).
 
ia gree with u here thinkerman :tongue

I believe christianity has more holes than evolution (creationism vs evolution) because to me, where evolution has a problem, it works to fix it. When creationsim does, teh bible is altered, or its just simply said "its gods will" or "you dotn haev faith in god so you cant udnerstand"
 
Werner Gitt simply confines his theory to the branch of information science concerned with coded information. Is jwu actually claiming that Werner Gitt made up the concept of coded information just to foil the theory of evolution? Every single one of us is familiar with the concept of coded information since we all use coded information whenever we speak to another person or write something down.
Not the concept of coded information, but he added metaphysical concepts like "free will" to suit his purposes. Also take a look at the end of my post about this.

A beneficial change in the genetic code provides no explanation at all for how that code came to be in the first place. Codes and coded information are not even made out of matter or energy, which is all that the naturalistic processes of evolution have to work with.
Codes are made of math or logic. These just exist.
Besides, codes have been observed to come into existence through the means of mutation and natural selection:

Codes for communication through quantum gates, which did evolve:
http://www.genetic-programming.com/hc/spectordense.html
http://www.genetic-programming.com/hc/s ... molin.html


Jwu really should put on his thinking cap.
Nice flame.

And did that measuring instrument arise spontaneously through a trial and error process of evolution?
Yes!
The "evolution" of measuring instruments could be successfully simulated:
http://www.genetic-programming.com/hc/thermometer.html
This is the circuit plan of an electronical thermometer which was created by the means of evolution, mutation and natural selection.

No, measuring instruments are tools created by an intellect. And they report their measured data in a code. A code that can only be interpreted by an intellect or by another machine created by an intellect. Which just proves the point that “any given chain of coded information points to a mental sourceâ€Â.
If that measuring instrument has been constructed by an intellect or not does not even matter at all in first instance - it merely acts as a translator between different codes. The code that it translates from are the laws of the universe. They allow things to contain information, from which we can draw conclusions. E.g. the speed and direction of an object, combined with conservation of momentum, are a possible way to code the information where it has been x seconds ago.

That's fatal for Gitt's version of information theory. The code wasn't agreed upon by both sender and receiver, but got figured out one-sidedly.

Life simply cannot exist without coded information. But naturalism has no observed ability to create that coded information.
That's simply wrong...increase in genetic information has been observed.


Another look at the whole list:
1) Information cannot be set up, stored, or transmitted without using a code.
Okay...

2) A code is always the result of a free and deliberate convention. It is a uniquely defined set of symbols that has been agreed upon by both sender and receiver.
A free and deliberate convention?
I don't think anyone asked the ribosomes if they are fine with using that code...so a free and deliberate convention between sender and receiver is not given. One even could argue that based on this DNA is not coded information in first instance.

3) There can be no information without a sender.
Information can be extracted out of observing things which do not have a sender, see above.

4) Any given chain of coded information points to a mental source.
Otherwise it's not coded information? This smells like circular reasoning.
Strings of DNA created by mutation should not be coded information at all then...

5) Coded information cannot exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will.
How does one establish information? Why does it have to be a free will, or even a will at all? Is anything else not coded information?

6) All coded information involves five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
Statistics – a fixed, agreed upon character set
Syntax – a pre-agreed grammar and word structure
Semantics – the message must have meaning. It conveys an idea from the sender
An idea from the sender? I don't think that things which exchange strands of DNA or RNA in a cell have an "idea" that it wants to convey

Pragmatics – the message causes the recipient to stimulate, initialize or implement some action
Apobetics – the sender intends a result to be achieved in, or by the recipient
7) Coded information can never originate in statistical processes. For example, a computer program designed to construct sentences using a dictionary and English grammar would never produce true information. Every true message sent by a sender will always convey some meaning to the receiver. The sender always intends that his message will achieve some result. But the computer program would never be able to add meaning to a message.
This doesn't quite sound falsifiable at all to me...
If it's natural, then it perhaps might look like information but it isn't true information...
Well, how do we know that DNA is true information in first instance?

Gitt thus dug his own theory's grave by placing an excellent example of the true scotsman fallacy in one of its very axioms.

This is also what i was referring to when i said that Gitt made up his own information theory to suit his purposes, which i paraphrased as "i define that information is something artificial, therefore it doesn't come from natural sources and evolution is wrong".
With his last point he defines that DNA strands which are the result of mutation are not real information. His analogy about that computer program which produces random sentences describes just that.
 
Asimov said:
:roll:

Another huge hole in the theory of evolution is the fact that evolution has no explanation for the coded information that is present in all living organisms. Without the coded information present in the DNA of every living thing, life simply would not be possible. But the naturalistic processes of evolution have no observed ability to create that coded information.

Not yet, anyway, flinx. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I find it strange that skeptics frequently use the "absence of evidence" argument when debating the validity of the Bible, but then turn around and say it doesn't work when debating evolution.
 
Back
Top