[_ Old Earth _] More on the role of Information

[brother Paul]

Please watch this in its entirety first (about 20 minutes) and then address why or why not YOU think this thinking is a valid or invalid understanding of the presence of life...thanks

The Information Enigma

 

[Barbarian]

What do you think is the most compelling argument in the video, and what is the evidence for it?

A brief review of molecular information theory
Thomas D. Schneider*
Nano Commun Netw. 2010 Sep; 1(3): 173–180.

The idea that we could build molecular communications systems can be advanced by investigating how actual molecules from living organisms function. Information theory provides tools for such an investigation. This review describes how we can compute the average information in the DNA binding sites of any genetic control protein and how this can be extended to analyze its individual sites. A formula equivalent to Claude Shannon’s channel capacity can be applied to molecular systems and used to compute the efficiency of protein binding. This efficiency is often 70% and a brief explanation for that is given. The results imply that biological systems have evolved to function at channel capacity, which means that we should be able to build molecular communications that are just as robust as our macroscopic ones.

As you see, evolutionary theory is leading to the development of very tiny information systems. Shannon information theory has led to many scientific applications. On the other hand, creationists have done nothing at all with their concept of "information."

And if can't do anything, what good is it?

 

[brother Paul]

You always miss the point that all information is not a result...it also must be present to cause. In the case of something as specific as DNA (in structure and function) DNA not only produces information but more importantly, information (even in the form of consistent laws and principles) had to precede its formation (out of which its function demonstrates purpose)...

 

[Sinthesis]

The video makes the common mistake of confusing evolution with origin. The Cambrian explosion happened well after the origin of life. The video is also incorrect in presuming information must originate with a scientifically discernible intelligence. One can make the philosophical argument that the existence of information is proof of God, but that goes beyond what can be proven scientifically.

The daunting bike lock example doesn't directly apply to evolution. In an evolution analogy the bike lock and its correct combination already exist. The only question is if a single random mutation in the combination sequence will open the lock better. This is important because the lock is the environment the combination must operate in, and the environment changes.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Okay, the Cambrian Explosion made me think of Genesis 1:20:

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.

Though the verses proceeding this also mention the existence of plant life before this, so if Genesis is to be taken at it's word, information existed before there was life in the oceans.

I'm not qualified to debate anything here and I know I'm not really addressing the main argument...I'm just giving what came to my mind.

 

[brother Paul]

The video makes the common mistake of confusing evolution with origin. The Cambrian explosion happened well after the origin of life. The video is also incorrect in presuming information must originate with a scientifically discernible intelligence. One can make the philosophical argument that the existence of information is proof of God, but that goes beyond what can be proven scientifically.

The daunting bike lock example doesn't directly apply to evolution. In an evolution analogy the bike lock and its correct combination already exist. The only question is if a single random mutation in the combination sequence will open the lock better. This is important because the lock is the environment the combination must operate in, and the environment changes.

Yes, however some evolutionists make the common mistake of assuming the origin of life as happening via evolution....pardon the generalization but they assume that when dead matter (carbon, hydrogen, etc) formed into organic compounds that the organic compounds formed into functional proteins that eventually became the first forms (maybe mitochondria, self-assembling RNA, ribosomes and ribozymes etc) from which all other types of living things arose (starting with unicellular becoming the multicellular, prokaryotes becoming eukaryotes)....

Also I do not think they were saying the intelligence is "scientifically discernible" (as if one can intelligently design and experiment to prove it) but that "intelligence" can be inferred from the evidence...the probabilities alone (but that is certainly not all) dhow the above assumption could not have occurred in a Universe only as old as we have discerned (there just has not been enough time)

The lock analogy only says what we scientifically know yo be true, that only certain combinations of specific genes code for a specific functional protein in a given organism...the odds of that happening so precisely for each of the millions upon millions of life forms, over and over...

Please respond but I am thankful for you expressing your view and all others...I thought it was very well done and scientifically sound

 

[brother Paul]

Okay, the Cambrian Explosion made me think of Genesis 1:20:

Though the verses proceeding this also mention the existence of plant life before this, so if Genesis is to be taken at it's word, information existed before there was life in the oceans.

I'm not qualified to debate anything here and I know I'm not really addressing the main argument...I'm just giving what came to my mind.

You do not have to debate to defend your view...

 

[Barbarian]

You always miss the point that all information is not a result...it also must be present to cause.

There must be a universe, yes. But this is perfectly consistent with God creating a universe in which life can be simply brought forth by the earth. What is remarkable is how much information can form from such a simple beginning. But God is quite capable of doing such a thing, regardless of what creationists imagine.

In the case of something as specific as DNA (in structure and function) DNA not only produces information but more importantly, information (even in the form of consistent laws and principles) had to precede its formation (out of which its function demonstrates purpose)...

In the absence of atoms and the laws of nature, it would not be possible. But again, God is a lot more effective than creationists would like Him to be.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, however some evolutionists make the common mistake of assuming the origin of life as happening via evolution....

That would be rather surprising, since "evolution" (Darwin's "descent with modification") is defined as "change in allele frequency over time." It would be like a professed Christian, who didn't believe in God.

pardon the generalization but they assume that when dead matter (carbon, hydrogen, etc) formed into organic compounds that the organic compounds formed into functional proteins that eventually became the first forms (maybe mitochondria, self-assembling RNA, ribosomes and ribozymes etc) from which all other types of living things arose (starting with unicellular becoming the multicellular, prokaryotes becoming eukaryotes)....

Leaving off the fact that earth is not dead (i.e. formerly living) God says that life came from non-living matter. And I believe Him. You should, too.

Also I do not think they were saying the intelligence is "scientifically discernible" (as if one can intelligently design and experiment to prove it) but that "intelligence" can be inferred from the evidence...the probabilities alone (but that is certainly not all) dhow the above assumption could not have occurred in a Universe only as old as we have discerned (there just has not been enough time)

This could do with a rewrite. I don't know what you're trying to say here.

The lock analogy only says what we scientifically know yo be true, that only certain combinations of specific genes code for a specific functional protein in a given organism...the odds of that happening so precisely for each of the millions upon millions of life forms, over and over...

Show us a specific example, and how it is impossible for natural selection to produce it. Given that we now know that the fundamental chemicals of life can form abiotically, it's rather unreasonable to deny that God could do it.

 

[brother Paul]

Show us a specific example, and how it is impossible for natural selection to produce it.

Cannot prove a negative....but I do respect your response. How do I prove the Sun cannot surround itself with a barrier of Ice? How can I prove trees do not morph into mosquitoes? Because they do not do this (or ever have) is the best answer one can give. Natural selection applies only to living things, therefore for Natural Selection to have produced "life" it would have had to precede itself (a logical absurdity)

Chemicals everywhere follow the same rules and processes why should the formation of organic compounds (a distinction man has made) surprise anyone....this does not mean they are alive.

 

[turnorburn]

A Special Creation or the Lie of natural selection..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

What is remarkable is how much information can form from such a simple beginning. But God is quite capable of doing such a thing, regardless of what creationists imagine.

True, information is ALSO a product! But even THAT beginning state had information directing initial formations and governing the outcome in at least a general degree if not specific on many cases.

In the absence of atoms and the laws of nature, it would not be possible. But again, God is a lot more effective than creationists would like Him to be.

Again I could agree here, but it is precisely those laws that governed how those atoms should behave. Their behavior did not create the laws.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
What is remarkable is how much information can form from such a simple beginning. But God is quite capable of doing such a thing, regardless of what creationists imagine.

True, information is ALSO a product! But even THAT beginning state had information directing initial formations and governing the outcome in at least a general degree if not specific on many cases.

So, the few simple rules God established, that govern elementary particles, ultimately caused all of it to be. It doesn't have to be deterministic, even if it could be. As Aquinas observed, God can use contingency in His creation just as surely as he can use necessity.

In the absence of atoms and the laws of nature, it would not be possible. But again, God is a lot more effective than creationists would like Him to be.

Again I could agree here, but it is precisely those laws that governed how those atoms should behave. Their behavior did not create the laws.

We are not told precisely how that happened, nor is it something science can determine.

 

[brother Paul]

Leaving off the fact that earth is not dead (i.e. formerly living) God says that life came from non-living matter. And I believe Him. You should, too.

I'm surprised the first part came from you...the earth is certainly teeming with life but itself is not alive. In making the forms of all living things God used the atoms He has created, but until He breathed the breath of life in them they were not alive.

 

[Sinthesis]

Yes, however some evolutionists make the common mistake of assuming the origin of life as happening via evolution....pardon the generalization but they assume that when dead matter (carbon, hydrogen, etc) formed into organic compounds that the organic compounds formed into functional proteins that eventually became the first forms (maybe mitochondria, self-assembling RNA, ribosomes and ribozymes etc) from which all other types of living things arose (starting with unicellular becoming the multicellular, prokaryotes becoming eukaryotes)....

That's not evolution. People believe all kinds of stuff, but evolution doesn't kick in until life already exists.

Also I do not think they were saying the intelligence is "scientifically discernible" (as if one can intelligently design and experiment to prove it) but that "intelligence" can be inferred from the evidence...the probabilities alone (but that is certainly not all) dhow the above assumption could not have occurred in a Universe only as old as we have discerned (there just has not been enough time)

Intelligent design is not scientifically inferred from naturally occurring evidence. It can be assumed from an incomplete understanding of naturally occurring evidence, which is what intelligent design relies on. However, as scientific understanding expands, those who have staked their faith on unexplained wonder may face a crises when those wonders are explained via natural processes.

Low probability does not mean something is impossible, only unlikely. If I give you a 1077 sided dice and ask you to throw it, you don't have to wait until the end of the universe to see what you rolled. You may have rolled the magic number on your first try. I'm pretty sure God can roll whatever He wants. As improbable as it might be, we do exist.

The lock analogy only says what we scientifically know yo be true, that only certain combinations of specific genes code for a specific functional protein in a given organism...the odds of that happening so precisely for each of the millions upon millions of life forms, over and over...

...are actually pretty good, because life makes it its business to record those combinations for use by the current and future generations. Your cells are not coming up with these myriad combinations out of thin air, they are inherited. If your cellular machinery messes up a combination, either it proves beneficial and gets passed on to your kids, or it kills you before you can have kids, so dies with you.(amongst a whole lot of other possible scenarios, but you get the idea)

Please respond but I am thankful for you expressing your view and all others...I thought it was very well done and scientifically sound

 

[brother Paul]

That's not evolution. People believe all kinds of stuff, but evolution doesn't kick in until life already exists.

Precisely Sinth, that’s been a point I have been making since the beginning…evolution via natural selection does NOT occur until life already exists….therefore life cannot be the product of Natural Selection or Evolution. But you would be surprised at how many atheists I have discussed and debated the issue with who claim it MUST have happened that way.

Intelligent design is not scientifically inferred from naturally occurring evidence. It can be assumed from an incomplete understanding of naturally occurring evidence, which is what intelligent design relies on. However, as scientific understanding expands, those who have staked their faith on unexplained wonder may face a crises when those wonders are explained via natural processes.

Low probability does not mean something is impossible, only unlikely. If I give you a 1077 sided dice and ask you to throw it, you don't have to wait until the end of the universe to see what you rolled. You may have rolled the magic number on your first try. I'm pretty sure God can roll whatever He wants. As improbable as it might be, we do exist.

A 10 to the 77th power die in a Universe with 10 to the 65th power number of atoms? Wow….a cool imaginary scenario….if it were plausible it could happen once as you have said only the number is 10 to the 87th power (magnitudes more than even 10 to the 77th) and the die would have had to have fallen on the same number of probability millions of times multiplied by each number of possible carbon life form that functions with actively productive proteins. So in effect the reality we have is even more miraculous than the imaginary scenario.

So yes only an Intelligence could produce this amount of information. Just think of all the information necessary to produce all the life forms of the Cambrian alone. Wow!!!!

Commenting on my comment of the lock analogy you replied that the odds...are actually pretty good, because life makes it its business to record those combinations for use by the current and future generations. Your cells are not coming up with these myriad combinations out of thin air, they are inherited. If your cellular machinery messes up a combination, either it proves beneficial and gets passed on to your kids, or it kills you before you can have kids, so dies with you.(amongst a whole lot of other possible scenarios, but you get the idea)…but actually sequencing would make no sense if the order of the DNA bases were meaningless. Genome sequencing relies on the principle that the precise order of the bases is critical for function.

But that is not the end-all of what is involved. After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) this led to a recent Nobel Prize for discovering (with two others) base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA. It is a system of functions (that had to have been present in the earliest cells of the earliest DNA dependent life forms) if not already extant would have made LIFE as we know it impossible.

This process must take place millions of times a day in just one human body just for the cells of that body to maintain their integrity and not fall into chemical chaos. Now you imagine… imagine "a molecular system that constantly counteracts DNA collapse" not being already in place now that we know of the molecule’s instability. Without these systems being simultaneously present with life’s first genomes there would have been no cells…the DNA NECESSARY to provide the functional proteins for all subsequent evolution would have degenerated quickly….the laws and principles governing the development of these inter-dependent systems (and there are many) to me infer forethought…forethought of a highly sophisticated nature more powerful than any 100 human beings combined or anything they can conjure or conjecture. So in effect, the reality we have is even more miraculous than any imaginary or theoretical scenario.

 

[Milk-Drops]

evolution via natural selection does NOT occur until life already exists….therefore life cannot be the product of Natural Selection or Evolution. But you would be surprised at how many atheists I have discussed and debated the issue with who claim it MUST have happened that way.

They aren't here now. So.......... why the strawman? As far as I've seen Abiogenesis is the popular held hypothesis among science literate Atheists.

A 10 to the 77th power die in a Universe with 10 to the 65th power number of atoms? Wow….a cool imaginary scenario….if it were plausible it could happen once as you have said only the number is 10 to the 87th power (magnitudes more than even 10 to the 77th) and the die would have had to have fallen on the same number of probability millions of times multiplied by each number of possible carbon life form that functions with actively productive proteins. So in effect the reality we have is even more miraculous than the imaginary scenario.

Sinth's point still stands, we exist in a specific scenario and almost all actions taken are mathematically unlikely.

So yes only an Intelligence could produce this amount of information. Just think of all the information necessary to produce all the life forms of the Cambrian alone. Wow!!!!

Can you give us a solid definition of an Intelligence?

Commenting on my comment of the lock analogy you replied that the odds...are actually pretty good, because life makes it its business to record those combinations for use by the current and future generations. Your cells are not coming up with these myriad combinations out of thin air, they are inherited. If your cellular machinery messes up a combination, either it proves beneficial and gets passed on to your kids, or it kills you before you can have kids, so dies with you.(amongst a whole lot of other possible scenarios, but you get the idea)…but actually sequencing would make no sense if the order of the DNA bases were meaningless. Genome sequencing relies on the principle that the precise order of the bases is critical for function.

You completely missed the point of Sinth's argument and I don't think you understand basic chemistry if you are making this statement. Gene sequencing happens in the order it does because of chemical reactions that has properties that guide it. You are anthropomorphism cell function. You are confusing chemical reactions with complex thought.

But that is not the end-all of what is involved. After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) this led to a recent Nobel Prize for discovering (with two others) base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA. It is a system of functions (that had to have been present in the earliest cells of the earliest DNA dependent life forms) if not already extant would have made LIFE as we know it impossible.

Why would life be impossible? Why would that function have to exist in primitive cells? What makes you think primitive cells act anything like they act today? Why?

This process must take place millions of times a day in just one human body just for the cells of that body to maintain their integrity and not fall into chemical chaos.

Good thing Humans adopted this trait from its ancestors then.

Now you imagine… imagine "a molecular system that constantly counteracts DNA collapse" not being already in place now that we know of the molecule’s instability. Without these systems being simultaneously present with life’s first genomes there would have been no cells…the DNA NECESSARY to provide the functional proteins for all subsequent evolution would have degenerated quickly….the laws and principles governing the development of these inter-dependent systems (and there are many) to me infer forethought…forethought of a highly sophisticated nature more powerful than any 100 human beings combined or anything they can conjure or conjecture. So in effect, the reality we have is even more miraculous than any imaginary or theoretical scenario.

The problem you are having is that you didn't demonstrate that these systems had to exist through all of life. You only made a claim that cells had to have these systems. You need to demonstrate or link us to research that did demonstrate your claims to be credible.

 

[evenifigoalone]

You do not have to debate to defend your view...

Of course. I actually brought it up because while I am a creationist I am interested in how evolution, for example, might fit into the Genesis narrative. I was hoping some others would comment on that, both for and against, but I suppose that might be off topic?

 

[Barbarian]

I'm surprised the first part came from you...the earth is certainly teeming with life but itself is not alive. In making the forms of all living things God used the atoms He has created, but until He breathed the breath of life in them they were not alive.

Nothing in scripture says that He breathed anything into them. They were merely brought forth from the earth. That's how He did it, and that was sufficient.

 

[Barbarian]

Of course. I actually brought it up because while I am a creationist I am interested in how evolution, for example, might fit into the Genesis narrative. I was hoping some others would comment on that, both for and against, but I suppose that might be off topic?

St. Augustine wrote that the language in Genesis says that God created all things. He understood it to say that God created things with a potentiality (a bit like Paul's idea) and then they developed according to the potentiality they were given from the beginning.

From the start, life had that potentiality to be all the living things that have every appeared on the planet.