Creation of information

[abelcainsbrother]

Interesting discussion,however it only reminds me of why I don't really like Intelligent Design.It is not because it makes the case for an intelligent designer but that it gives the Theory of Evolution too much benefit of the doubt.

I mean in this discussion random mutations and natural selection were brought up,but these are really useless phrases because these things just cause normal variations amongst the populations,which is not evolution.

The reason I refer to random mutation and natural selection is they are both scientific facts with observable behavior.
Microevolution (which you refer to as normal variation) is also an observable scientific fact.

The point I'm making is very simple.
The observed behavior of random mutation is incapable of generating the code/information that we see in the DNA of life today.

Are you disputing that statement?
In fact is there any statement that I have made in this thread regarding evolution, mutation, or natural selection that you consider to be factually inaccurate?

I generally try to steer away from the term 'evolution' because it means different things to different people, that is why I focus on the term 'random mutation' which is unambiguous and observable.

Here is the last statement in which I used the term 'evolution'
If you assume that evolution is an undirected material process... then evolution as you define it is demonstrably false (within the context of generating new information).

Can you find anything inaccurate in that statement?

Yeah,I see what you're doing. And I know you don't mean to give evolution too much benefit of the doubt,and I thought you did a wonderful job making the case for an Intelligent designer,but you are unintentionally by accepting micro-evolution as evolution and accepting that random mutations and natural selection cause it.Big Deal! If Charles Darwin did not consider it evolution,then why do people today? Anyway,not wanting to get off topic and drag this is an anti-evolution thread but there are serious problems with the Theory of Evolution and yet they are ignored.

[Nils]

This thread is about information and Meyer's statement 1) "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process". I have tried to show how Meyer could motivate rebutting The Evolution Theory from his statement.
You comment this:

Since you are unable to rebut Meyer's real argument (because it's factually true) you resort to building up and then tearing down a straw man argument .

But I also said that

if you don't like mine and cannot find another that is better, it is up to you finding another deduction schema taking you from 1) to 7).

Now you comment this:

My logic is pretty simple...

There are two proposals on the table for the generation of the code that we find in the DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation
2. Intelligence

As we have discussed elsewhere, the observed behavior of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab demonstrates that "random" mutation is incapable of producing the code that we see in the DNA of life today.

The only known observable causal explanation for code is an intelligent coder.

So if we want to identify a causal explanation for the code in the DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing code (ie random mutation).

But this is not about Mayer's statement 1), it is about some other argument against something else. What this something is I don't know. You talk about "random" mutations but that is not the evolution theory which is about random mutations AND natural selection. I don't know why you prefer to change subject, missing arguments perhaps ?
My argument is based on a detailed deduction schema of Meyers argument. If you don't like mine but aren't able to support an own it is difficult to continue this discussion.
Nils

[DBowling]

This thread is about information and Meyer's statement 1) "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process". I have tried to show how Meyer could motivate rebutting The Evolution Theory from his statement.
You comment this:

Since you are unable to rebut Meyer's real argument (because it's factually true) you resort to building up and then tearing down a straw man argument .

But I also said that

if you don't like mine and cannot find another that is better, it is up to you finding another deduction schema taking you from 1) to 7).

Now you comment this:

My logic is pretty simple...

There are two proposals on the table for the generation of the code that we find in the DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation
2. Intelligence

As we have discussed elsewhere, the observed behavior of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab demonstrates that "random" mutation is incapable of producing the code that we see in the DNA of life today.

The only known observable causal explanation for code is an intelligent coder.

So if we want to identify a causal explanation for the code in the DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing code (ie random mutation).

But this is not about Mayer's statement 1), it is about some other argument against something else. What this something is I don't know. You talk about "random" mutations but that is not the evolution theory which is about random mutations AND natural selection. I don't know why you prefer to change subject,

Oh... its exactly the same subject.
Perhaps a slight change in terms will make things clearer...

There are two proposals on the table for the source of the information that we find in the code of DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation and natural selection
2. Intelligence

If we want to identify a causal source for the information in the code of DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing new information and code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing new information and code (ie random mutation and natural selection).

My argument is based on empirical evidence and observed behavior.
- The observed behavior of random mutation and natural selection.
- The known observed sources of new information and code.

And Meyer's statement
"Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind, not an undirected material process".
Is based on observed (or 'seen') behavior.

[Philip]

Nils' objections, at this point, seem silly - and certainly unsubstantiated by evidence - by ANY evidence!

[Nils]

There are two proposals on the table for the source of the information that we find in the code of DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation and natural selection
2. Intelligence

If we want to identify a causal source for the information in the code of DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing new information and code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing new information and code (ie random mutation and natural selection).

Assume there is a population of bacteria, all with a genome type A. One bacterium gets a mutation at a specific position P in the genome. After some time the descendants of this bacterium dominate the population. The mutation apparently was beneficial. Now we have a new piece of information: If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial. This information was generated by a random mutation and natural selection.

Nils

[DBowling]

There are two proposals on the table for the source of the information that we find in the code of DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation and natural selection
2. Intelligence

If we want to identify a causal source for the information in the code of DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing new information and code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing new information and code (ie random mutation and natural selection).

Assume there is a population of bacteria, all with a genome type A. One bacterium gets a mutation at a specific position P in the genome. After some time the descendants of this bacterium dominate the population. The mutation apparently was beneficial. Now we have a new piece of information: If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial. This information was generated by a random mutation and natural selection.

Nils

The problem with your argument is the very first word... "Assume".

We don't have to "assume" anything.
We have "observed" the behavior of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.
We have observed its frequency and we have observed its scope.

And the observed behavior of random mutation and natural selection is incapable of producing the information and code that we find in the DNA of life today.
On the other hand we have "observed" that intelligence is capable of generating both information and code.

Which brings us to the conclusion
If we want to identify a causal source for the information in the code of DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing new information and code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing new information and code (ie random mutation and natural selection).

[Nils]

There are two proposals on the table for the source of the information that we find in the code of DNA of life today:
1. "Random" mutation and natural selection
2. Intelligence

If we want to identify a causal source for the information in the code of DNA of life today, the best choice is to choose the causal explanation that is known to be capable of producing new information and code (ie an intelligent coder) over a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing new information and code (ie random mutation and natural selection).

Assume there is a population of bacteria, all with a genome type A. One bacterium gets a mutation at a specific position P in the genome. After some time the descendants of this bacterium dominate the population. The mutation apparently was beneficial. Now we have a new piece of information: If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial. This information was generated by a random mutation and natural selection.

Nils

The problem with your argument is the very first word... "Assume".

Assume indicates that this was an example.

We don't have to "assume" anything.
We have "observed" the behavior of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.
We have observed its frequency and we have observed its scope.

Yes, we observe and get information! Information created by the process of random mutation and natural selection

And the observed behavior of random mutation and natural selection is incapable of producing the information and code that we find in the DNA of life today.

That's another thing. I don't argue about that now. I was talking about a simple case where a mutation and natural selection produced a piece of information.
Perhaps I have to clarify, you said earlier: " ..... a causal explanation that has never been observed to be capable of producing new information and code (ie random mutation and natural selection)"
My example shows that random mutation and natural selection DOES produce information.

Nils

[DBowling]

We have "observed" the behavior of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.
We have observed its frequency and we have observed its scope.

Yes, we observe and get information! Information created by the process of random mutation and natural selection

Just to make sure we are using "information" in the same way.
When Meyer uses the term "information" I believe he is using the definition "data that is specific and organized for a purpose"... in Meyer's quotes he often relates "information" to code.
Data in and of itself is not information.
Data that is organized for a purpose is what Meyer is referring to when he uses the term.

That said...
Random mutation and natural selection almost always involve deletions... which is not new data that is specific and organized.
Random mutation and natural selection rarely add data, but even when replications occur and data is added, that data is not new and it is not "specific and organized". And it is not beneficial to the organism so natural selection will remove harmful mutations such as replications.

I would be interested if you could identify an instance where random mutation and natural selection have added new data that is specific and organized and provided new functionality to an existing organism.

I am not aware of any, but maybe you know of some examples that I am unaware of.

[Nils]

We have "observed" the behavior of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.
We have observed its frequency and we have observed its scope.

Yes, we observe and get information! Information created by the process of random mutation and natural selection

Just to make sure we are using "information" in the same way.
When Meyer uses the term "information" I believe he is using the definition "data that is specific and organized for a purpose"... in Meyer's quotes he often relates "information" to code.
Data in and of itself is not information.
Data that is organized for a purpose is what Meyer is referring to when he uses the term.

I am using "information" in the common sense, "resolving uncertainty" (Wikipedia). If you restrict it to "specific and for a purpose" you automatically exclude evolutionary processes which are not goal directed. If Meyer uses your non-standard definition his argument about information would be meaningless. I don't think he makes that mistake even if I'm not sure. However, in my bacterium example, the genetic code is changed so in that respect "information" is related to code. Your comment about "data" I don't understand, some data contain information.

We have to agree on this before continuing.

Nils

[DBowling]

We have "observed" the behavior of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.
We have observed its frequency and we have observed its scope.

Yes, we observe and get information! Information created by the process of random mutation and natural selection

Just to make sure we are using "information" in the same way.
When Meyer uses the term "information" I believe he is using the definition "data that is specific and organized for a purpose"... in Meyer's quotes he often relates "information" to code.
Data in and of itself is not information.
Data that is organized for a purpose is what Meyer is referring to when he uses the term.

I am using "information" in the common sense, "resolving uncertainty" (Wikipedia). If you restrict it to "specific and for a purpose" you automatically exclude evolutionary processes which are not goal directed. If Meyer uses your non-standard definition his argument about information would be meaningless. I don't think he makes that mistake even if I'm not sure.

I'm good with what Wikipedia says...

Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "what an entity is" and thus defines both its essence and nature of its characteristics. It is associated with data, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and information is data in context and with meaning attached[1]. Information relates also to knowledge, as knowledge signifies understanding of an abstract or concrete concept.[2]
In terms of communication, information is expressed either as the content of a message or through direct or indirect observation. That which is perceived can be construed as a message in its own right, and in that sense, information is always conveyed as the content of a message.
Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a signal). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communication.
The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information, but other units such as the nat may be used. For example, the information encoded in one "fair" coin flip is log2(2/1) = 1 bit, and in two fair coin flips is log2(4/1) = 2 bits.

The Wikipedia article points to the following link to describe the difference between information and data
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information

Data - Data is raw, unorganized facts that need to be processed. Data can be something simple and seemingly random and useless until it is organized.
Information - When data is processed, organized, structured or presented in a given context so as to make it useful, it is called information.

So when Meyer repeatedly compares "information" to computer code his use of the term is consistent with the "standard" usage as described in the Wikipedia article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

[Nils]

We have "observed" the behavior of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.
We have observed its frequency and we have observed its scope.

Yes, we observe and get information! Information created by the process of random mutation and natural selection

Just to make sure we are using "information" in the same way.
When Meyer uses the term "information" I believe he is using the definition "data that is specific and organized for a purpose"... in Meyer's quotes he often relates "information" to code.
Data in and of itself is not information.
Data that is organized for a purpose is what Meyer is referring to when he uses the term.

I am using "information" in the common sense, "resolving uncertainty" (Wikipedia). If you restrict it to "specific and for a purpose" you automatically exclude evolutionary processes which are not goal directed. If Meyer uses your non-standard definition his argument about information would be meaningless. I don't think he makes that mistake even if I'm not sure.

I'm good with what Wikipedia says...

Information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty; it is that which answers the question of "what an entity is" and thus defines both its essence and nature of its characteristics. It is associated with data, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and information is data in context and with meaning attached[1]. Information relates also to knowledge, as knowledge signifies understanding of an abstract or concrete concept.[2]
In terms of communication, information is expressed either as the content of a message or through direct or indirect observation. That which is perceived can be construed as a message in its own right, and in that sense, information is always conveyed as the content of a message.
Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a signal). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communication.
The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information, but other units such as the nat may be used. For example, the information encoded in one "fair" coin flip is log2(2/1) = 1 bit, and in two fair coin flips is log2(4/1) = 2 bits.

The Wikipedia article points to the following link to describe the difference between information and data
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information

Data - Data is raw, unorganized facts that need to be processed. Data can be something simple and seemingly random and useless until it is organized.
Information - When data is processed, organized, structured or presented in a given context so as to make it useful, it is called information.

So when Meyer repeatedly compares "information" to computer code his use of the term is consistent with the "standard" usage as described in the Wikipedia article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

If you are content with what Wikipedia says then you should be content with my bacteria example. There is nothing in your long quote that contradicts that. The data is that all bacteria after a certain time have the mutation. The meaning, the information is "If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial".
What I oppose is your requirement on information that it should be "organized for a purpose". As I said, that is a non-standard definition, it excludes an evolutionary process, and is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

It will take us too far away to discuss Meyers use of 'data' and 'code' in his video and we have to agree on the definition matter first.
Nils

[DBowling]

If you are content with what Wikipedia says

Do you agree with the contrast between data and information that the Wikipedia article referenced?

Data - Data is raw, unorganized facts that need to be processed. Data can be something simple and seemingly random and useless until it is organized.
Information - When data is processed, organized, structured or presented in a given context so as to make it useful, it is called information.

What I oppose is your requirement on information that it should be "organized for a purpose". As I said, that is a non-standard definition,

Actually "organized for a purpose" is a standard definition
http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... ation.html
The reason I used that definition is because as you noted, it explicitly supports the point that Meyer is making.

But the Wikipedia definition also supports Meyer's understanding of information, as does the link the Wikipedia article made to the difference between data and information. The key being meaningful non-random structure and organization.
(I am ok with using Wikipedia's "meaning" instead of Business Dictionary's "purpose". To me they both convey the same point)

The data is that all bacteria after a certain time have the mutation. The meaning, the information is "If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial".

But again back to the point I was making, a beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information.
In fact the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations are deletions and involve the loss of information.

[Nils]

The data is that all bacteria after a certain time have the mutation. The meaning, the information is "If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial".

But again back to the point I was making, a beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information.

A beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information, but the message that a specific mutation is beneficial is a new piece of information (new if the receiver of the information didn't know this before).
If you don't think that this is a piece of information, please explain why (ie what is your point?)

In fact the overwhelming majority of beneficial mutations are deletions and involve the loss of information.

This can be discussed but I don't see the relevance of it related to my bacteria example. There are cases when a single mutation is beneficial.
Nils

[DBowling]

The data is that all bacteria after a certain time have the mutation. The meaning, the information is "If a bacterium of type A gets a mutation in position P, this mutation is beneficial".

But again back to the point I was making, a beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information.

A beneficial mutation is not the same thing as new information, but the message that a specific mutation is beneficial is a new piece of information (new if the receiver of the information didn't know this before).
If you don't think that this is a piece of information, please explain why (ie what is your point?)

Genetic replication is a function of existing genetic code.
Genetic replication allows for a limited amount of variation to occur within the existing genetic code.

However genetic replication is incapable of creating new functionality or new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization).
It is only able to replicate existing functionality that is already inherent to the existing genetic code.

So getting back to the discussion in the thread.
If genetic replication is a function of existing information in the genetic code.
The question at hand is...
What is the source of the genetic code that enables the genetic replication?

The answer is...
Whatever, created the genetic code that enables the replication in the first place.
And the only known causal agent that has been observed to be capable of producing code of any type is intelligence.

Random mutation and natural selection have most often been observed to propagate deletions of genetic code.
But to the best of my knowledge, random mutation and natural selection have never been observed to generate new information (ie... meaningful non-random structure and organization) or new code and new functionality.

Random mutation and natural selection are only able to replicate preexisting genetic code and introduce limited random (not meaningful, organized or structured) variation within a limited scope.

[Philip]

DB: "And the only known causal agent that has been observed to be capable of producing code of any type is intelligence."

Exactly!

Nils: "... but the message that a specific mutation is beneficial is a new piece of information (new if the receiver of the information didn't know this before)."

A new piece of even infinitely useful information with innumerable, amazing potentialities means what, exactly, to a non-thinking, non-intelligent entity? USELESS - as such new information would not be seen, heard, understood, comprehended, or processed by any non-intelligent things. And billions years onward, nothing would change in regards to brilliant information where no intelligence ever existed. This is the eternal status of blind, non-intelligent things, as they have ZERO capabilities.