Creation of information

[Philip]

Nils: "once it's up and running" - HOW is THAT accomplished by blind, non-intelligent things???!!! Nils tends to toss out statements without substantiating how they could occur. His assertions add up to blind things accomplishing the miraculous.

[PaulSacramento]

No, I don't claim that no intelligence is needed for the creation of the program or a computer. I claim that when the computer is there and the program is up and running then the program is creating information without any help from an intelligence. That's what needed to exemplify a process similar to the evolution process which also creates information without any help from an intelligence.

That would be AI and AI at the level of "Skynet".
And that would still be a computer that was programmed to do that ( increase in computing capabilities), that is why your phone will never be self-aware.

[Nils]

The information issue is one that evolutionary biologist openly admit a problem with.

Please, can you give any reference to a main stream evolutionary biologist that discusses this.

First off, do your own homework.
I am tried of doing all the leg work for people, sorry.
BUT, here is a first step: https://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.php

If you mention that the information issue is one that evolutionary biologist openly admit a problem with, I think it is primarily your homework to find a reference.
Now I read your reference. There was a reason why I asked for a main stream evolutionary biologist. I think that Meyer and his mates at the Discovery institute have missunderstod the issue of information so there is no use to refer to them. I don't know how the True Origin organisation is related to Discovery but they apparently are not main stream evolutionary biologists because the have the agenda of "Exposing the Myths of Evolution". I can't comment everything in the long article by Royal Truman but I notice he makes lot of references to Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. Besides I note lot of peculiarities. Just two examples: He refers to "an inevitable consequence of the law of increase in entropy to which all matter is subject in the long run" which is only correct for closed systems. In biology there are few closed systems. He uses the example of changing writings of Shakespeare character by character which only demonstrates that he hasn't any idea of how biological evolution works (Meyer also makes the same mistake).
If you can find any biologist that think that the evolution theory is true (a main stream position) and think that there is an issue with the information problem I am still interested.
Nils

[Nils]

In the discussion so far I notice that there are lot of misunderstanding of what I say in the opening post. I try to repeat and explain the most important parts but please refer to the OP for further information.
Most common is the misunderstanding that I think that the program, the labyrinth search program, could be generated by some naturalistic process. I don't understand why, I clearly write "you can write a program" and also say "perhaps less than 30 lines of code". Nothing fancy at all, and that the program has to be created by an intelligence is clear.

Also common is that my intension is to show that the program is similar to the evolution process. There is only one intended similarity and that is that the program can generate information, nothing more. And of course, the program was written for the purpose it has, to generate information about the path in the labyrinth. In the OP I mention programs that use the evolutionary algorithm to create new information but they are far far more complex than my simple program. Also, they don't use the algorithm on their own code, that is a misunderstanding as I tried to explain. The program code has few similarities to the DNA code.

My logic is simple. In the OP i wrote: "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information." This can be stated (similar to my 4, in #21):
5. There is no processes that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).

It apparently will suffice with one example of a process that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process) to disprove 5. Hence, the only thing I had to show that a process, for instance a computer program, could generate information after it had been created and that I think I showed with my example program.

Note that whether the process was created by an intelligence or not is not important. What I'm talking about is the case that the process is "up and running", i.e. after that the process had been created.

I hope that this also is an answer to #30 DB, #31 Philip, and #32 Paul.

Nils

[DBowling]

My logic is simple. In the OP i wrote: "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information." This can be stated (similar to my 4, in #21):
5. There is no processes that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).

You have still failed to provided an example that supports your assertion.

The ability of the computer to create new information is dependent on the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
The program is dependent on the intelligence of the designer of the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
==> even after the creation of the computer and the program... the ability of the computer to create new information is still dependent on the program which is a manifestation of the intelligence of the designer.

Even after the creation of the computer and the program, the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer.

To prove your assertion you would have to demonstrate that a computer can generate new information utilizing a program that is not dependent on or a function of an intelligent designer.

[Nils]

My logic is simple. In the OP i wrote: "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information." This can be stated (similar to my 4, in #21):
5. There is no processes that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).

You have still failed to provided an example that supports your assertion.

The ability of the computer to create new information is dependent on the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
The program is dependent on the intelligence of the designer of the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
==> even after the creation of the computer and the program... the ability of the computer to create new information is still dependent on the program which is a manifestation of the intelligence of the designer.

Even after the creation of the computer and the program, the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer.

To prove your assertion you would have to demonstrate that a computer can generate new information utilizing a program that is not dependent on or a function of an intelligent designer.

Now you are trying to win the debate by semantics. If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition. Now, I didn't use the word "dependent", I used the word " interference" and then your conclusion fails.

The question is then, which word is reasonable? In the discussion about creation of information during the biological evolution process I have never found an argument like yours. In the OP i defined the problem thus:
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information."
The person arguing for this claim could reason like you saying: God created the universe and made the process of Darwinian evolution possible so any information that is created by that process is dependent on God so the process itself can't create any independent information. QED. But they don't, see for instance the article Paul referred to. It's more than 20 pages long but don't mention this argument and the reason is clear. They don't argue for the self evident claim that if God created the universe everything is in some way dependent on God. They make a stronger claim that the process itself, without any reference to who or what created it, can't create information. I know that Philip and others argues something like this self evident proof but the author of the article and the Discovery Institute claim something stronger. They claim that "intelligence is needed to create new information" and what they intend is that some intelligence actively interferes with the biological process.

I think that we should use the word "interfere" discussing the cases with computer programs also.

Nils

[DBowling]

My logic is simple. In the OP i wrote: "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information." This can be stated (similar to my 4, in #21):
5. There is no processes that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).

You have still failed to provided an example that supports your assertion.

The ability of the computer to create new information is dependent on the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
The program is dependent on the intelligence of the designer of the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
==> even after the creation of the computer and the program... the ability of the computer to create new information is still dependent on the program which is a manifestation of the intelligence of the designer.

Even after the creation of the computer and the program, the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer.

To prove your assertion you would have to demonstrate that a computer can generate new information utilizing a program that is not dependent on or a function of an intelligent designer.

Now you are trying to win the debate by semantics.

I'm not trying to win anything.
I'm just pointing out that your example does not support your claim.

If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Exactly!
The only way for the program to be independent of the programmer is for the program itself to be altered by someone or something that is independent from the original programme or the program itself.

Now, I didn't use the word "dependent", I used the word " interference" and then your conclusion fails.

That's not what you said in your OP.
This is what you claimed...
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

"Interference" is nowhere to be seen in your OP.
The question at hand is whether or not intelligence is needed to create new information.
Nothing about "interference"... nothing about "after the creation process".
You keep moving the bar as the discussion goes along.

In your example the intelligence of a programmer is needed for a program to enable a computer to create new information.
Your example does not support your premise.

[Nils]

My logic is simple. In the OP i wrote: "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information." This can be stated (similar to my 4, in #21):
5. There is no processes that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).

You have still failed to provided an example that supports your assertion.

The ability of the computer to create new information is dependent on the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
The program is dependent on the intelligence of the designer of the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
==> even after the creation of the computer and the program... the ability of the computer to create new information is still dependent on the program which is a manifestation of the intelligence of the designer.

Even after the creation of the computer and the program, the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer.

To prove your assertion you would have to demonstrate that a computer can generate new information utilizing a program that is not dependent on or a function of an intelligent designer.

Now you are trying to win the debate by semantics.

I'm not trying to win anything.
I'm just pointing out that your example does not support your claim.

If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Exactly!
The only way for the program to be independent of the programmer is for the program itself to be altered by someone or something that is independent from the original programme or the program itself.

Now, I didn't use the word "dependent", I used the word " interference" and then your conclusion fails.

That's not what you said in your OP.
This is what you claimed...
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

"Interference" is nowhere to be seen in your OP.
The question at hand is whether or not intelligence is needed to create new information.
Nothing about "interference"... nothing about "after the creation process".
You keep moving the bar as the discussion goes along.

In your example the intelligence of a programmer is needed for a program to enable a computer to create new information.
Your example does not support your premise.

It is difficult to state an OP so that all possible interpretations of the claim is are considered. The discussion forced me to specify "needed" with "when the program is up and running" and "interference". This isn't moving the bar, it is specifying what I mean. If you can't allow me to specify what I mean a discussion is impossible. Besides it should be obvious what I meant (and mean) from the example in the OP.

Also, we are not discussing morality. A programmer should be held responsible for whatever his program does later, but now we are discussing information and the programmer has no possibility to include information in the program about everything the program may do later for instance the paths for every labyrinth the program may handle in the future.

It would be helpful if you commented my last post, #36
Nils

[DBowling]

My logic is simple. In the OP i wrote: "What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information." This can be stated (similar to my 4, in #21):
5. There is no processes that creates information without the interference of an intelligence (after the creation of the process).

You have still failed to provided an example that supports your assertion.

The ability of the computer to create new information is dependent on the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
The program is dependent on the intelligence of the designer of the program. (Do you agree with this statement?)
==> even after the creation of the computer and the program... the ability of the computer to create new information is still dependent on the program which is a manifestation of the intelligence of the designer.

Even after the creation of the computer and the program, the ability of the computer to create new information is a function of and thus dependent on the intelligence of the designer.

To prove your assertion you would have to demonstrate that a computer can generate new information utilizing a program that is not dependent on or a function of an intelligent designer.

Now you are trying to win the debate by semantics.

I'm not trying to win anything.
I'm just pointing out that your example does not support your claim.

If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Exactly!
The only way for the program to be independent of the programmer is for the program itself to be altered by someone or something that is independent from the original programme or the program itself.

Now, I didn't use the word "dependent", I used the word " interference" and then your conclusion fails.

That's not what you said in your OP.
This is what you claimed...
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

"Interference" is nowhere to be seen in your OP.
The question at hand is whether or not intelligence is needed to create new information.
Nothing about "interference"... nothing about "after the creation process".
You keep moving the bar as the discussion goes along.

In your example the intelligence of a programmer is needed for a program to enable a computer to create new information.
Your example does not support your premise.

It is difficult to state an OP so that all possible interpretations of the claim is are considered. The discussion forced me to specify "needed" with "when the program is up and running" and "interference". This isn't moving the bar, it is specifying what I mean. If you can't allow me to specify what I mean a discussion is impossible. Besides it should be obvious what I meant (and mean) from the example in the OP.

Also, we are not discussing morality. A programmer should be held responsible for whatever his program does later, but now we are discussing information and the programmer has no possibility to include information in the program about everything the program may do later for instance the paths for every labyrinth the program may handle in the future.

It would be helpful if you commented my last post, #36
Nils

My understanding is that your statement
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

Was an attempt to refute the position ID proponents such as Meyer and Behe.

If your "clarifications" are redefining "needed" to mean something other than "necessary" or "dependent on"
then you are no longer challenging the ID position of Meyer and Behe, and there is really nothing to refute.

[PaulSacramento]

Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code


Let's assume, again, that a primordial sea filled with life's building blocks did exist on the early Earth, and somehow it formed proteins and other complex organic molecules. Origin of life theorists believe that the next step in the origin of life is that -- entirely by chance -- more and more complex molecules formed until some began to self-replicate. From there, they believe Darwinian natural selection took over, favoring those molecules which were better able to make copies. Eventually, they assume, it became inevitable that these molecules would evolve complex machinery -- like that used in today's genetic code -- to survive and reproduce.


Have modern theorists explained how this crucial bridge from inert nonliving chemicals to self-replicating molecular systems took place? The most prominent hypothesis for the origin of the first life is called the "RNA world." In living cells, genetic information is carried by DNA, and most cellular functions are carried out by proteins. However, RNA is capable of both carrying genetic information and catalyzing some biochemical reactions. As a result, some theorists postulate the first life might have used RNA alone to fulfill all these functions.


But there are many problems with this hypothesis.


For one, the first RNA molecules would have to arise by unguided, non-biological chemical processes. But RNA is not known to assemble without the help of a skilled laboratory chemist intelligently guiding the process. New York University chemist Robert Shapiro critiqued the efforts of those who tried to make RNA in the lab, stating: "The flaw is in the logic -- that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth."15


Second, while RNA has been shown to perform many roles in the cell, there is no evidence that it could perform all the necessary cellular functions currently carried out by proteins.16


Third, the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of genetic information.


RNA world advocates suggest that if the first self-replicating life was based upon RNA, it would have required a molecule between 200 and 300 nucleotides in length.17 However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides.18 To explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 -- below the universal probability boundary, or events which are remotely possible to occur within the history of the universe.19 Shapiro puts the problem this way:

The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.20
Fourth -- and most fundamentally -- the RNA world hypothesis does not explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA / protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information. This poses a chicken-and-egg problem, where essential enzymes and molecular machines are needed to perform the very task that constructs them.


The Chicken and the DVD


To appreciate this problem, consider the origin of the first DVD and DVD player. DVDs are rich in information, but without the machinery of a DVD player to read the disk, process its information, and convert it into a picture and sound, the disk would be useless. But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk at the same time.


In living cells, information-carrying molecules (e.g. DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery which reads that information and converts it into proteins are like the DVD player. Just like the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.


This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription / translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Biologist Frank Salisbury explained this problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.21
Despite decades of work, origin-of-life theorists are still at a loss to explain how this system arose. In 2007, Harvard chemist George Whitesides was given the Priestley Medal, the highest award of the American Chemical Society. During his acceptance speech, he offered this stark analysis, reprinted in the respected journal, Chemical and Engineering News:

The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.22
Similarly, the aforementioned article in Cell Biology International concludes: "New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood."23 That is, they may never be understood unless scientists are willing to consider goal-directed scientific explanations like intelligent design.


But there is a much deeper problem with theories of chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution. This pertains not just to the ability to process genetic information via a genetic code, but the origin of that information itself.

Source:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1551

[Nils]

It would be helpful if you commented my last post, #36
Nils

My understanding is that your statement
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

Was an attempt to refute the position ID proponents such as Meyer and Behe.

Not generally, only their position on creation of new information, specifically during unguided parts of the evolution, namely that it's impossible.

If your "clarifications" are redefining "needed" to mean something other than "necessary" or "dependent on"
then you are no longer challenging the ID position of Meyer and Behe, and there is really nothing to refute.

Please comment my #36. There I explain that there are two cases. In both cases it is possible to apply the worlds "necessary" or "dependent on" but in the case I talk about the world "interfere" is more suitable.
Nils

[Nils]

...
...
Source:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1551

Paul, I don't understand why you post this.
First, this is again a reference to an ID proponent which is useless as an independent source to support the idea of other ID proponents. In this thread I've discussed the idea that there is an information problem in the evolution theory. Secondly, the reference isn't about information theory. Thirdly, it's not even about the evolution theory, it's about another theory, abiogenesis, how life and evolution started. Something that isn't known today.
Nils

[DBowling]

It would be helpful if you commented my last post, #36
Nils

My understanding is that your statement
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."

Was an attempt to refute the position ID proponents such as Meyer and Behe.

Not generally, only their position on creation of new information, specifically during unguided parts of the evolution, namely that it's impossible.

I'm still trying to figure out precisely where we agree and disagree on your computer example

Do we agree on the following statement that you posted earlier?
If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.

Is there anything in the following statement that you disagree with?
- It is impossible for a computer to create new information without a program
- It is impossible for a computer program to exist without an intelligent programmer.
==> It is impossible for a computer to create new information without an intelligent programmer

Please comment my #36. There I explain that there are two cases. In both cases it is possible to apply the worlds "necessary" or "dependent on" but in the case I talk about the world "interfere" is more suitable.

In the OP i defined the problem thus:
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information."
The person arguing for this claim could reason like you saying: God created the universe and made the process of Darwinian evolution possible so any information that is created by that process is dependent on God so the process itself can't create any independent information.

That is a potentially legitimate position...
... if Darwinistic processes can be demonstrated to be capable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

I don't happen to hold that position, for reasons that we have already discussed in another thread.

They don't argue for the self evident claim that if God created the universe everything is in some way dependent on God. They make a stronger claim that the process itself, without any reference to who or what created it, can't create information.. I know that Philip and others argues something like this self evident proof but the author of the article and the Discovery Institute claim something stronger. They claim that "intelligence is needed to create new information" and what they intend is that some intelligence actively interferes with the biological process.

I agree with that 'stronger' claim based on the following.

Darwinian Evolution presumes "random" mutation.
We have empirical data regarding the capability of "random mutation", and as we have discussed elsewhere the observed capability of random mutation is inconsistent with what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today (by astronomical orders of magnitude).

Therefore if we assume mutations have occurred that are beyond the empirically observed capability of "random" mutation, then that is evidence (at least to me) that some intelligence has potentially "interfered' in the mutation process to generate new information.
Some might call that a 'creative' act.

That's my .02.

But to get back to the OP, I am unaware of any situation where new information has been created that is not ultimately dependent on intelligence of some sort.
And I think that is the key point here.

[PaulSacramento]

...
...
Source:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1551

Paul, I don't understand why you post this.
First, this is again a reference to an ID proponent which is useless as an independent source to support the idea of other ID proponents. In this thread I've discussed the idea that there is an information problem in the evolution theory. Secondly, the reference isn't about information theory. Thirdly, it's not even about the evolution theory, it's about another theory, abiogenesis, how life and evolution started. Something that isn't known today.
Nils

Did you read it?
because if you did, you would have read:

In living cells, information-carrying molecules (e.g. DNA or RNA) are like the DVD, and the cellular machinery which reads that information and converts it into proteins are like the DVD player. Just like the DVD analogy, genetic information can never be converted into proteins without the proper machinery. Yet in cells, the machines required for processing the genetic information in RNA or DNA are encoded by those same genetic molecules -- they perform and direct the very task that builds them.


This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription / translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language. Biologist Frank Salisbury explained this problem in a paper in American Biology Teacher not long after the workings of the genetic code were first uncovered:

It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.21

[PaulSacramento]

Just an FYI:

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutral- ... -20181108/