Does the second law of thermodynamics pose a problem for evolution? Daniel Styer doesn't think so. In fact, in a recent paper he found that any entropy decrease here on Earth due to evolution would have been dwarfed by the entropy increase of solar radiation contributing to the cosmic microwave background. He writes:In other words, entropy is a non issue. In fact, Styer shows it is a non issue by 12 orders of magnitude (it is actually 14 orders of magnitude but Styer makes a calculation error). How does he arrive at this conclusion? Styer compares individuals separated by 100 years and uses a factor of 1000 times reduction in microstates. This nicely turns out to solve the problem.Presumably the entropy of the Earth’s biosphere is indeed decreasing by a tiny amount due to evolution, and the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increasing by an even greater amount to compensate for that decrease. But the decrease in entropy required for evolution is so small compared to the entropy throughput that would occur even if the Earth were a dead planet, or if life on Earth were not evolving, that no measurement would ever detect it.
Interestingly Styer says his selection of a reduction factor of 1000 is "very generous." One can hardly argue with that. Am I 1000 times less likely than my great grandfather? Of course not.
But why not go further to strengthen the case? Styer could increase the factor to 100000 or 10^6, or 10^12, or 10^50, or 10^99, or ..., without harming the case. With Styer's method one could assume individuals separated by 100 years have a reduction in microstates that is tens or hundreds of orders of magnitude beyond Styer's "very generous" assumption. Styer could have made a "very, very, very, very, very ... generous" assumption and still reveal entropy to be a non issue.
But of course this would have revealed the silliness. Every individual, in every species, for all history could be 10^99 more improbable than an individual from a century earlier, and you're nowhere close to a problem. Amazing what a little sunlight does.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Amazing what a little sunlight does.
ReplyDeleteQuite. The Earth is bathed in energy. There is no problem from a thermodynamic point of view for life or for evolution because of the steep energy gradient coming from the Sun.
Indeed, no matter how smart you are, no matter how clever you may think you are, no matter the design you choose, you can't overcome the Laws of Thermodynamics. That's the whole point.
Since when can information be created by simply adding energy to matter?
ReplyDeleteUnguided application of energy has never been observed to create a message
This question and claim, I think, betray a fundamental confusion. It is easy to generate information in the Kolmogorov sense through ordinarily-understood physical processes, such as radioactive decay. There is no generally-accepted definition of "message" in the information theory literature, so your second claim is incoherent. Should you disagree, please tell me which of the following strings of symbols represent "messages" and which do not:
#1:
001001001100011011111010010111010010111000100000100000100111
#2:
010100111011001100001111101011100101110011110110010000001101
#3:
101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010
#4:
101111101111101110101110111110101111101110101110101110101001
Yep, the sun can get the job done. Try this. Put a bowl of water in a sealed, dark, room. The water will evaporate until the air is saturated. Now open the curtains and let the sun shine in. We now have the energy required to decrease entropy and with time all the water will go back into the bowl.
ReplyDeleteSuckerspawn: Yep, the sun can get the job done. Try this. Put a bowl of water in a sealed, dark, room. The water will evaporate until the air is saturated. Now open the curtains and let the sun shine in. We now have the energy required to decrease entropy and with time all the water will go back into the bowl.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much the Earth's hydrolic cycle, where energy from the Sun purifies and pumps water through the system which then collects in basins called oceans.
A fun elementary school experiment is to make a terrarium illustrating the water cycle. Water evaporates, condenses on the surface, then rains back into soil.
Build a mini-rain forest.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tropical-forests.com/2008/09/build-a-mini-rainforest/
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYes, entropy is a non-issue. Even creationists have figured that out: Arguments we think creationists should not use.
Styer framed his argument in terms of the number of microstates, a somewhat esoteric quantity that is, loosely speaking, the inverse probability. He could have used Dembski's "universal probability bound" (10 to the power 150) and the argument would still carry through. Translated into a more familiar measure of information, bits, Styer's calculation becomes less esoteric and reveals how absurd the creationist argument was.
The genome of a mammal has the size of a few gigabytes. This quantity should be compared to the typical amount of entropy involved in thermal processes. When one gram of water is cooled by 1 degree Celsius it gives off 4.2 J of heat and with it, 0.014 J/K of entropy. To translate this amount of entropy into bits, divide it by the Boltzmann constant and by the natural logarithm of 8. The result is 500 billion gigabytes, or 500 exabytes. Here is a helpful article putting an exabyte into a proper perspective.
The amounts of entropy flowing through living organisms is orders and orders of magnitude larger than the amount of information stored in genomes. That's why the balance of Shannon information and entropy is a non-issue in evolution. It's like looking at the balance sheet of a large bank and seeing that its balance has gone up by a penny and ignoring millions of dollars come come in and go out.
Creationists, of course, realized this a long time ago. They are no longer arguing about the standard measure of information (Shannon's) and instead are saying that information in the genome is specified. So update your argument, Cornelius. Your friend Granville Sewell is years behind even YECs.
Prof Shallit,
ReplyDeleteIt is good to get a competent blogger with your background to get a good debate on this subject. I read Yockey's critic of this argument. He is no partisan of evolution, an he did not buy this entropy argument. Nevertheless, you said:
"It is easy to generate information in the Kolmogorov sense through ordinarily-understood physical processes, such as radioactive decay."
I wonder how well this mathematical system models the complexities of biological life. Obviously the complex workings of a cell require very intricate instructions for the many co-ordinated complex tasks. Any mathematical model that claims the information in biological life is not complex does not seem to me to be credible. Can you support this claim in lay language?
I do agree with Yockey's calculation however about the improbability of the origin of life where he shows that realistically life never had enough time to begin randomly.
Just up at UD and to be considered here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/andy-mcintoshs-peer-reviewed-id-paper-note-the-editors-note/
A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy—Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics 4(4) (2009): 351-385
The Editor appends the following note:
Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic. Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor’.
Here is the abstract:
Abstract: This paper deals with the fundamental and challenging question of the ultimate origin of genetic information from a thermodynamic perspective. The theory of evolution postulates that random mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information over successive generations. It is often argued from an evolutionary perspective that this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because it is proposed that the entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce due to energy input from an outside source, especially the sun when considering the earth as a biotic system. By this it is proposed that a particular system can become organised at the expense of an increase in entropy elsewhere. However, whilst this argument works for structures such as snowflakes that are formed by natural forces, it does not work for genetic information because the information system is composed of machinery which requires precise and non-spontaneous raised free energy levels – and crystals like snowflakes have zero free energy as the phase transition occurs. The functional machinery of biological systems such as DNA, RNA and proteins requires that precise, non-spontaneous raised free energies be formed in the molecular bonds which are maintained in a far from equilibrium state. Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information. Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium. The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not defined by the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machinery to be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it. This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
Prof Shallit,
ReplyDeleteI like to critique your position on the base that it successfully argue that all patterns are information. Even the act of recognizing patterns presuppose an ability to discern a pattern... but let us allow that simple Kolmogorov oversight. It is all about using / understanding / deciphering a particular pattern that identifies a pattern to be a message. Are you claiming that genetic information is not used / interpreted / deciphered?
I need to agree with Peter, posting above and A. C. McIntosh and ask you to bring evidence that genetic information is ONLY Kolmogorov information. To simplify it... Genetic information are USED for something i.e. specified by the act of organizing the pattern with a specific purpose, that can readily be identified by an investigating mind. (There is nothing fuzzy about a message.)
Where in nature does this(pattern with a purpose / message / algorithm) happen by application of information purely in the Kolmogorov sense? What is the mechanism that create algorithms though natural causes only?
P.S. Information is independent of the physical pattern that describes it. It has not been proven to be different. Until then a materialistic claim would keep on question begging.
Zachriel
ReplyDeleteThanks for that rainforest link. Looks like great little project for my kids.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1:
ReplyDelete001001001100011011111010010111010010111000100000100000100111
#2:
010100111011001100001111101011100101110011110110010000001101
#3:
101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010
#4:
101111101111101110101110111110101111101110101110101110101001
We need to know rule(s) of how to read it to understand it.
McIntosh: Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficielnt argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it.
ReplyDeleteOf course it's not sufficient. It isn't sufficient to explain the weather or plate tectonics either. But it isn't inconsistent with Thermodynamics.
I posted this previously. This is Dr. Tim Berra's agrument from Evolution and the Myth of Creationsism "refuting" the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
ReplyDeleteThese statements conveniently ignore the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shopping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve.
Does anyone know if he has ever disavowed his argument?
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteThis is the typical bait-and-switch tactics on the part of creationists. They first argue that the second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of life by natural means. Once their error is pointed out they change the claim and say that the possibility of a decrease in entropy in an open system does not explain the origin of life. Duh!
To me the telling conclusion is:
ReplyDelete"McIntosh:This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."
This conclusion is actually consistent with Yockey's position that:
"...There is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
from
"Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life by H Yockey p.2"
The laws of nature, including entropy is not a "sequence and code between sequences" and this brings a clear distinction between living and non living things. Non-living things simply obey the laws of nature BUT living things are composed of "...reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."
Empirical evidence for the forces/mechanism of nature creating any code system is still not forthcoming AND with the act of intelligence being the only phenomenon that create code systems the only conclusion is that living things were caused by intelligence.
Evolutionists and/or materialists only have a self referential argument that refutes itself in the absence of evidence of a mechanism to support their hypothesis. Therefore scream as hard as you like that "...the sun caused life!!!" it stays an unsubstantiated wishful thinking.
oleg said...
ReplyDelete" Zachriel,
This is the typical bait-and-switch tactics on the part of creationists. They first argue that the second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of life by natural means. Once their error is pointed out they change the claim and say that the possibility of a decrease in entropy in an open system does not explain the origin of life. Duh! "
Do you always argue your own reflection in an argument? Do you have no filter to discern what you concoct in your mind and what is actually presented to you? I hope this is only a temporary condition because you certainly cannot do science with this illustrated disposition. Is science not about seeing things for what they are?
Michael, if there is something wrong with my characterization of this issue then you should be able to point out the error without attacking the messenger.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific answer is being provided by others here, but did anyone bother to verify the 'journal' McIntosh published in?
ReplyDeleteHere are some articles from the most recent issue-
"The Supramolecular Structure Of Water: Nmr Studies"
"Dissipative Structures In Extremely Diluted Solutions Of Homeopathic Medicines: A Molecular Model Based On Physico-chemical And Gravimetric Evidences"
"Is The Living Dynamics Able To Change The Properties Of Water?"
-Vegetal leaves are triturated and suspended in water; the irritation produced by the cutting induces an intense electromagnetic activity that transforms the structure of water, giving rise to the imprinting of the particular biological process that has occurred.
Modern-day snake oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis
My my, what lengths IDers go to to 'publish' pre-refuted, pre-falsified claims.
oleg said...
ReplyDelete"...you should be able to point out the error..."
I did quote you, didn't I?
If you feel that highlighting an aspect of your argumentation in this blog post is a personal attack then you give further proof of my point, thank you.
All the best, with all my sincere respect.
Doublee: I posted this previously. This is Dr. Tim Berra's agrument from Evolution and the Myth of Creationsism "refuting" the claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics... Does anyone know if he has ever disavowed his argument?
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone disavow the argument? Human ingenuity does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics was originally developed largely because of the observed limitations of human design with regards to work and energy.
The sun provides energy to the plants who feed the animals who feed the people who tend the plants who feed ... Turn off the energy from the sun and the heat engine we call humanity will grind to a halt.
RobertC said...
ReplyDeleteThe scientific answer is
Sorry Rob but you wouldn't recognize a genuine scientific answer if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.
Denial of reality is part and parcel of insanity and you all show this symptom with every post here.
You have demonstrated nothing but blind adherence to inane propositions, denied proven facts, denied mathematical proofs, denied, denied, denied ... - thats all you do!
Like all atheists and all Darwinists, you are an expert at denial of reality - maybe take up a room next to thornton and Ritchie in their asylum?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI repeat:
ReplyDelete"Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness. Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility.
…
Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.
[my bold]
...
Constructions and descriptions lie in separate categories of reality. Dynamics (constraints, energy, mass, forces, and Jaws) are distinct from semiotics (symbols, codes, language, rules, digital information, control). Pattee realized that the frozen accidents of incidental physics and chemistry do not explain the highly algorithmic nature of genetic control. (Pattee, 1995a, pg. 3)
Get used to it people. The problem of prescribed formal information isn't going away and it is devastating to Darwinian theory.
With comments like RobertC's, I almost feel guilty for placing the UD post here. However if it were not for the fact that I sincerely share the editor's point of view in this matter.
ReplyDelete"...It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic."
If the Darwin voices on this blog are unable to see this honest challenge from the editor, then it actually makes a very telling point about their scientific disposition.
RobertC, I would like to see your pre-refutation
and pre-falsification. Give it your best shot.
P.S.Your measure of scholarly ability is very telling. Does it go like this...? Everyone that disagrees with Darwinism is not a scholar.
Gary: "Get used to it people. The problem of prescribed formal information isn't going away and it is devastating to Darwinian theory.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Another undefined, meaningless buzzword term from the IDC camp!
First it was 'specified complexity'
then 'complex specified information'
then 'functionally specified complex information'
then 'functional algorithmic information'
now it's 'prescribed formal information'
How many more ways can you IDiots come up with to express your personal incredulity? "Ooooh! It's soooooo complex!! It must have tons of (insert meaningless buzzword du jour here), so therefore it must be designed!!"
I am only working off the abstract, since the paper costs $30. This is therefore a general (and by no means exhaustive) critique:
ReplyDelete1) "Information" increases in evolution and random processes.
Therefore, empirical evidence demonstrates this line: "Thus, the specified complexity cannot be created by natural forces even in conditions far from equilibrium" to be false.
Genetic algorithms, directed evolution experiments, and direct observations of gain-of-function mutations, gene duplication and divergence, and de novo genes demonstrate functionality can come from selection acting on random variation.
Now, I suppose you can posit that a designer directly and deliberately intervened in each and every case (including all gain-of-functions in disease-take childhood leukemia, for example). This is beyond science, and what we can falsify.
So, perhaps we're reduced to information theory as a critique of origins or a form of theistic evolution.
2) DNA, RNA, and Proteins are chemicals, not codes
"Furthermore, biological structures contain coded instructions which, as is shown in this paper, are not defined by the matter and energy of the molecules carrying this information."
Is false. Biological structures act as physico-chemical templates for bio-polymers in chemical reactions. DNA bases and amino acids are specified by their chemistry, not our names for them. And where is this other code stored? I can recapitulate replication, transcription and translation from purified chemicals with no other mystical store of information to drive it.
3) The "algorithm" can be functionally reprogrammed with random input.
Randomizing one RNA of the ribosome led to the formation of a four-base recognizing ribosome (instead of the natural three).
Encoding multiple unnatural amino acids via evolution of a quadruplet-decoding ribosome
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7287/full/nature08817.html
This demonstrates the system is evolvable, which brings us to:
4) Complexity and 'code' arguments ignore hypothetical pathways of chemical and biological evolution
No biologist pondering abiogenesis stipulates the genetic code, the ribosome, etc. arise without precursors. We can get deep into the abiogenesis literature later, but I only need a few points:
-Processes like dehydration and UV-exposure can form biopolymers from building blocks.
-Short oligomers are catalytic. Random pools beget functions, some of which are at least partially self-propagating.
-The "code" is not fixed and can evolve (above).
-Energy input (of pre-life or early replicators) can contribute to the formation of order. Life undoubtedly can create order. Life made a set of physico-chemical coupled reactions.
5) The thermodynamic and entropy arguments are not unique to origins.
Indeed, taken literally, some variants have famously been criticized for arguing no ordering can occur ever, or no information could increase no matter what.
Similarly, this paper states:
"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."
Which sounds like some form of vitalism-a transcendent force bringing order? Not particularly testable or scientific. Then again, ID still can't tell me what is designed and what isn't, and how that determination was made for a single system.
When you add energy to a system, open or closed you increase entropy, unless the energy is added in a very controlled manner. This is waht machines do. A car controls the burning of gasoline to make the car move. But if I poor gas on my car and ignite it, I get a charred mass of metal with very high entropy. Organisms have complex structures that control the flow of energy so they can function. Without these systems in place, organisms would experience fatal entropy. In fact, organisms are constantly fighting entropy. They have systems to repair damaged DNA, maintain homoestasis, etc.
ReplyDeletenatschuster wrote: When you add energy to a system, open or closed you increase entropy, unless the energy is added in a very controlled manner.
ReplyDeleteThat's a vague statement, natschuster. There is no physical law that stipulates that.
The second law of thermodynamics says that as you increase energy entropy increase, unless I'm very much mistaken. In an open system entropy can decrease when enrgy leaces the system. Humans make machines to control the flow of energy so it can do useful work.
ReplyDelete1) "Information" increases in evolution and random processes.
ReplyDeleteRobertC
Do you mean random like lets say you and me mixing scrabble letters in the pot and pulling them out one by one?
natschuster wrote: The second law of thermodynamics says that as you increase energy entropy increase, unless I'm very much mistaken.
ReplyDeleteYou very much are. Why don't you find out what exactly the 2nd law of thermodynamics says?
Eugen-Sorry, I should have said information increases in evolution and other processes with random inputs. Selection, of course, is the key that makes the output anything but random.
ReplyDeleteNatcsh-The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy (in an open system) increases for the sum of the system and its surroundings for any spontaneous process. Order can be generated by "trading off" unfavorable entropy in the product with overall favorable entropy in the system.
For example, carbon nanotubes and Buckyballs (C60 and above) form spontaneously in candle soot-as the entropy of the overall system-the candle-is increasing. Similarly, crystallization or formation of bonds during evaporation proceeds because going from water to gas increases entropy.
Likewise, biological polymers can form by dehydration on simple mineral surfaces.
(I should mention that in treating this, we consider enthalpy. In crystallization by cooling, the entropy decrease due to fixing the molecules within a crystal is overcome by the thermal randomization of the surroundings, due to the release of the heat of fusion-and the entropy of the universe increases. Alternatively in dehydration, the enthalpy of vaporization contributes).
First paragraph is very clear Edward.Thanks.
ReplyDeleteDoes formation of Buckyballs mean increase in information?
BTW I'm still waiting for Jeffrey's rules on how to read his symbols.
"Does formation of Buckyballs mean increase in information?"
ReplyDeleteWell, here's the issue: information has taken on a lot of meanings, especially when used by ID folks.
I give nanotubes and Buckyballs as an example of a spontaneous reaction (combustion) creating highly ordered products. If you were to write a file of Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z) describing the structure of the 18 carbon wax, and the 60 to hundreds of carbon product, I suppose it would take more information to describe the product. Since most of the Carbon goes to C02 gas, overall entropy has increased, but complex product is formed.
Well, here's the issue: information has taken on a lot of meanings, especially when used by ID folks.
ReplyDeleteYes I guess. When we talk about information we should include rules for reading it.Than things would be more clear to me.
Those strings of symbols Jeffrey posted don't mean anything to me at the moment.At the same time some CPU could recognize it and do useful task with it.
Anyway ,looks like buckyballs follow simple rules for self assembly like snowflakes.
Any mathematical model that claims the information in biological life is not complex does not seem to me to be credible. Can you support this claim in lay language?
ReplyDeleteYou seem confused. In the Kolmogorov model, the information in DNA is apparently rather complex, because thus far it has resisted good compression. But it is not hard to generate complex information, because it can be generated by any random process. Indeed, the very incompressibility of DNA speaks to its generation by a random process.
One problem is that the layman's understanding of terms like "information" and "complex" do not match with the understandings of these terms by mathematicians and computer scientists.
Genetic information are USED for something i.e. specified by the act of organizing the pattern with a specific purpose, that can readily be identified by an investigating mind.
ReplyDeleteInformation theory does not speak about "purpose", and I don't know that there is any scientific definition of the word.
(There is nothing fuzzy about a message.)
Of course there is. If I send you the message "pain", am I threatening you, or just requesting a piece of bread in French? What is the non-fuzzy interpretation of "noon avuncular ill day clara"? Is "001010010" a series of random bits, or a message?
What is the mechanism that create algorithms though natural causes only?
We have known since at least 1936 that the distinction between "algorithm" and "data" is illusory. That was the big insight of Turing's famous paper.
Information is independent of the physical pattern that describes it.
I think you're confused. The concept of the number "two" is also independent of whether we are talking about apples or arguments. But that doesn't mean that somewhere out there, there exists a "two" somewhere, independent of brains.
We know of no example where information is not instantiated in something like matter or energy. If you disagree, give me an example of where we have observed information without any material basis to encode it.
We know of no example where information is not instantiated in something like matter or energy. If you disagree, give me an example of where we have observed information without any material basis to encode it.
ReplyDeleteYou are generating information right now.What is material basis for encoding it?Is your process of thinking material?
Jeffrey Shallit said...
ReplyDelete"Information theory does not speak about "purpose", and I don't know that there is any scientific definition of the word."
=====
The reason is that information theory is probably the most confusing misnomer in science ever. "Pattern Theory" is the correct name. It is because Information Theory ONLY looks at patterns and the way patterns repeat and change. It gives the ability to use statistical methods to "compress" patters after which they can be returned to their original state. Application to information is coincidental.
It is therefore a non sequitur to insist that information should be viewed in the sense of Information Theory at all. If science is incapable to create a term then let logic and philosophy help.
=====
"(There is nothing fuzzy about a message.)
Of course there is. If I send you the message "pain", am I threatening you, or just requesting a piece of bread in French? What is the non-fuzzy interpretation of "noon avuncular ill day clara"? Is "001010010" a series of random bits, or a message?"
=====
This sounds like post modern relativism that presuppose that "any interpretation is a miss interpretation". The rational basis for reality is unfortunately not overturned by this presupposition and the law of non contradiction holds for ideas just as much as the interpretation of messages that carries them.
Confusing messages does not proof that messages are irrational or simply a physical pattern, in fact it proofs that messages cannot be reduced to a simple pattern expressed in matter and therefor stands as a strong evidence against your materialistic claim. The existence of successful communication consistently proofs that communication adhere to the principles of logic and not to the physical principles of patterns.
Being able to achieve a physical objective by the application of models that characterize aspects of reality and not the physical state itself is the phenomenon to be considered and not claims of pattern confusion. What physical mechanism can create models of reality and apply them to achieve an outcome? Describe that mechanism if you know of its existence.
=====
to be continued...
Jeffrey Shallit said...
ReplyDelete"What is the mechanism that create algorithms though natural causes only?
We have known since at least 1936 that the distinction between "algorithm" and "data" is illusory. That was the big insight of Turing's famous paper."
=====
You have not answered by question. You have not proven that any physical process, without intelligence or mind, can turn a pattern into an algorithm. The claim that a distinction between algorithms and data is only an "illusion" is nothing more than a metaphysical commitment to materialism. It is not a scientific position and the Tuning paper has not created proof for (...or a reason to belief that) the existence of algorithms apart from a mind that created it.
=====
"Information is independent of the physical pattern that describes it.
I think you're confused. The concept of the number "two" is also independent of whether we are talking about apples or arguments. But that doesn't mean that somewhere out there, there exists a "two" somewhere, independent of brains."
We know of no example where information is not instantiated in something like matter or energy. If you disagree, give me an example of where we have observed information without any material basis to encode it."
=====
In this last statement you confirm your materialist presupposition firmly and nothing about my state of being confused or not. The arguments and evidence supporting the existence of mind separate from brain is almost as old as human inquiry itself and your claim is nothing more that a strong arming technique. I hope not that you make use of this technique with your students.
For examples that supports the existence of mind and therefore information separate from matter I will refer you to a publication by some of your countrymen.
"The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul"
by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'leary
It systematically evaluate the instances observed in brain function that can not be explained by any known understanding of physics (including new notions of quantum physics) but fits with the long held rational notion that mind is an entity acting on brain and body to achieve action in the physical world.
Apart from this you also need to evaluate the logical dilemmas of a materialistic view and there you might find insight from the work of Alvin Plantinga. Start with this:
http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/all/profiles/plantinga-alvin/documents/AGAINSTMATERIALISM.pdf
To conclude I think that you still need to let me know if there is any physical process that can create an algorithm that successfully guide the genetic machines that constitute physical life forms. I would also like to know if you disagree with my correction of the name "Information Theory" to "Pattern Theory", and obviously why you would disagree.
Zachriel: Why would anyone disavow [Dr. Berra's] argument? Human ingenuity does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because Dr. Berra was attempting to show that evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and his analogy clearly shows that intelligence is required to create order out of disorder.
Using his brain, (i.e., intelligence) he directed his muscles to assemble the parts of the bicycle into a completed bicycle. This, by analogy, is the intelligent design argument. Dr. Berra's argument inadvertently supports intelligent design.
Some have called this Berra's Blunder #2. His first blunder was using a series of Chevrolet Corvette models to demonstrate how evolution works.
The argument of Prof. McIntosh still stand very firm because none of the almost unintelligible ramblings of RobertC touch on any of the arguments presented in the abstract.
ReplyDeleteI also have not been able to read the article, but RobertC has not even been able to understand what was presented to him in the abstract. It is self evident that Prof. McIntosh did not argue about RobertC's notions of evolutionary changes in existing life forms. The argument seems to be about the thermodynamic realities that are presented to the origin of life itself.
It seems to me that RobertC and Oleg share the same lack of being able to evaluate any argument presented to them.
P.S. RobertC, none of your evo-arguments and evidences present anything but unfounded extrapolations from currently observed genetic variations to the origin of life. In fact it consistently distorts the observed phenomenon to force fit it into a Darwinian model. Just keep reading Dr. Hunter's post and maybe it will become clear to you.
RobertC: DNA, RNA, and Proteins are chemicals, not codes
ReplyDeleteI agree, just as magnetized letters are plastics and magnets.
Biological structures act as physico-chemical templates for bio-polymers in chemical reactions. (My emphasis)
One definition for template is anything that determines or serves as a pattern. And it is the pattern, that is the sequence, of nucleotides that ultimately determines the protein that will be built. The sequence cannot be prescribed by any laws of physics and chemistry, just as there is no law of physics and chemistry that will arrange the magnetized letters on the metal board to form a correctly spelled word.
If I interpreted your use of the word "template" correctly, and if you would agree that there are no laws of physics and chemistry that can directly construct the various templates that are used as the bases for the various proteins, then we agree on this point as well.
I emphasize the word "direclty" because I will agree that chance is a possible explanation, but then we get into the agruments about probabilities.
DNA bases and amino acids are specified by their chemistry, not our names for them.
The properties of plastics and magnets are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and not our names for them.
Micheal,
ReplyDeleteI can always tell when I touch a nerve. The insults come flying my way. Maybe we could keep it civil? Differences in opinion are not differences in intellect. I clearly stated my critique was going to be general in nature, and beyond the scope of the abstract.
Returning to my main point:
Information increases in evolution and other process with random input.
Your response:
"RobertC, none of your evo-arguments and evidences present anything but unfounded extrapolations from currently observed genetic variations to the origin of life"
Is false. Direct observations of gain of function, with sequencing of parent and progeny imply a natual gain of function (or as I stated-that a 'designer' did it-a unfalsifiable nonscientific alternative). In genetic algorithms and directed evolution, we can track the change at each step.
Random variation+Natural selection -> Information
My third point, that the code itself can be reprogrammed with random input further proves this point.
++++++
"It is self evident that Prof. McIntosh did not argue about RobertC's notions of evolutionary changes in existing life forms. The argument seems to be about the thermodynamic realities that are presented to the origin of life itself."
Is a point I also acknowledged. I think ID and you must concede information can increase in evolution through natural processes. This is empirically demonstrated. Theoretical hand waving in the face of data makes you look silly.
So, ID exits the realm of evolution, and enters abiogenesis. Ok with me. But information can also increase in chemical evolution. Random oligomers have been selected for enzymatic and duplication. So there, too you have empirical data picking away at your theory.
My final point, that the thermodynamic arguments do not apply only to origins goes unanswered. Physics remains constant, so there needs to be some explanation for why we observed natural increases of information now, but it could not happen then.
Doublee-
ReplyDelete"I agree, just as magnetized letters are plastics and magnets."
False analogy.
Those magnetic letters are symbols that could be replaced by wood, chalk, marker, metal, and retain their meaning. The composition of the letter is decoupled from its function. Alanine is 2-Aminopropanoic acid, a precise arrangement of C3H7NO2, and nothing else. Nothing can abstractly substitute for it.
And to read the letters takes a mind. To execute transcription and translation takes other chemicals.
"that there are no laws of physics and chemistry that can directly construct the various templates that are used as the bases for the various proteins,"
Precisely. There doesn't have to be. The input to natural (or artificial) selections are RANDOM with respect to need. Evolution doesn't need a designer to pre-arrange the bases-just sufficient random variation to act on.
That information does increase in processes with random inputs is the undeniable empirical evidence that falsifies the ID prediction based on a poor application of information theory to biology.
That the code is reprogrammable by random input furthers my argument.
Lastly, a comment. There seems to be a genre of argument asking for a law of physics or chemistry to dictate evolution. Life isn't universal, so we merely need to demonstrate it is allowed for.
Doublee: Because Dr. Berra was attempting to show that evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and his analogy clearly shows that intelligence is required to create order out of disorder.
ReplyDeleteThere is no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics when a human makes a bicycle. There is more thermodynamic entropy *after* the bicycle is made. Nor does it take intelligence for entropy to decrease locally.
RobertC,
ReplyDeleteI think we are now back on track and I admire your effort to clean up your argument.
I would like to point out that your claim:
"...observed natural increases of information..."
...has one serious flaw, a flaw that is valid for all the studies you cited. The flaw is that the complete algorithmic details of the genetic machinery has not been investigated to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed increase in information is not causally linked to pre-existing algorithms executing and causing the change. (I suppose you know that algorithms can execute to create new algorithms code and this contradict Darwinian mechanisms.)
Looking at what is already known about the genetic machinery it is very reasonable to expect such a state of affairs to explain all the objections you raised. Also take into account that the list evidence that genetic code degradation is prevalent, is even longer than the proposed increase.
I hope this will help you see that the evolutionary presuppositions in the study of genetics is clouding the minds of Darwinist investigators to see just what they want to see. Debunked claims of "Junk DNA" epitomize the stupidity of this bias towards Darwinism.
RobertC,
ReplyDeleteIn your argument with Doublee you blatantly ignore the fact that Doublee obviously see the genetic machinery as it is driven algorithms executing and not simply random strings of code being part of chemistry. You also kick dust up about the uniqueness of the genetic code carrying medium while you should know that the genetic code can be expressed on computer hard drives while it is used to simulate genetic processes. With guys like Venter doing genetics we will soon be making our own custom made genetic algorithms, oops he already did it.
The fact is that you do nothing to support your claim that genetic processes are "just chemistry" but then you proof your point by only using that claim. The fallacy of argument is called begging the question.
...I am getting tired of pointing this fallacy out to the Darwinists on this blog.
Oleg's second comment here pretty much says all that needs to be said.
ReplyDeleteThe biologist's counter-argument to the 2LoT objection — bearing in mind that 2LoT is really, really, really about energy/entropy and not information or probability — is that the nuclear furnace we call the Sun
ALLOWS FOR
evolution to occur.
(Along with any other Earth phenomenon involving life).
There is no ultimate loss of energy on Earth alone, because of the Sun's input. When the Earth and Sun are considered together, it's much closer to a closed system, and there is an energy loss (afaik).
To put it another way: If the 2LoT objection were valid, the biggest puzzle wouldn't be "increased in complexity", but the very fact that life continues to survive. Given that Earth is a closed system, shouldn't life run out of energy and all go extinct? Well, the Sun is why we don't run out of energy, and hence are not closed.
This is not the same as saying that the Sun is the sole necessary ingredient for evolution.
That's like saying "So Timmy can run a mile in ten minutes? Amazing what a pair of lungs can do." Timmy, of course, has a lot more going for him than a pair of lungs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael states:"The flaw is that the complete algorithmic details of the genetic machinery has not been investigated to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed increase in information is not causally linked to pre-existing algorithms executing and causing the change."
ReplyDeleteHow would such algorithms work?
For example, if we had populations of three species within a single genus that had a shared selective pressure, could we expect that they would experience a common mutation because of a pre-existing algorithm? Or would they all have their own, unique pre-existing algorithms waiting to be sprung into action when needed?
Further, what would be the most parsimonious explanation if all three populations experienced different mutations that have varying degrees of effectiveness in resolving their shared selective pressure? Would random mutation or some form of front-loading be a better explanation for this varied result?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMichael said...
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that you do nothing to support your claim that genetic processes are "just chemistry" but then you proof your point by only using that claim. The fallacy of argument is called begging the question.
...I am getting tired of pointing this fallacy out to the Darwinists on this blog.
Actually the fact is you have done nothing to show that actual genetic processes are not just chemistry. You're still too dense to understand that the human-created symbolic language created to model and record the observed chemical reactions doesn't make the original reactions symbolic or designed. The actual genetic code can not be expressed on computer hard drives - the human created symbolic language that describes the reactions can.
It's a real basic concept that IDCers like you can't seem to grasp, no matter how many times it's explained to you
Oleg:
ReplyDeleteEverything I've read seem to say that entropy increase as the energy on a system increase.
Edward:
I undetand you to be saying that if we have cycles of cooling and heating, then in the colling process ploymers can start to form. would they break apart in the next heating cycle? Has anyone made polymers by simply adding energy to a batch of simple molecules? Cells can do it by using all kinds of enzymes to control the energy flow. And chemist can do it by similar processes. Can it be done in a natural inorganic setting?
"The flaw is that the complete algorithmic details of the genetic machinery has not been investigated to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed increase in information is not causally linked to pre-existing algorithms executing and causing the change."
ReplyDeleteWell, are you conceding information does increase in evolution? And if this increase in information is not due to nature, but designed processes, well friend, I feel the burden of proof lies on you. I'm not sure how one would discover, let alone rule out said "pre-existing algorithms." Perhaps ID could provide a means of identifying and investigating them?
"The fact is that you do nothing to support your claim that genetic processes are "just chemistry""
My support is that genetic processes (replication, transcription, and translation can be carried out in test tubes from purified or synthesized components. Replication from chemistry, no vital spark or divine intervention.
"then in the colling process ploymers can start to form. would they break apart in the next heating cycle?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Oligo nucleic acids formed by dehydration on minerals are quite stable.
"Has anyone made polymers by simply adding energy to a batch of simple molecules?"
Yes.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p805621h4774p6gt/
Can it be done in a natural inorganic setting?
Yes.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Prebiotic+synthesis+of+biopolymers+on+inorganic+templates&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
You are generating information right now.What is material basis for encoding it?Is your process of thinking material?
ReplyDeleteThe information is generated by the interaction of matter and energy in the brain, of course. Otherwise how could devices that allow paraplegics to control devices by thinking work?
The reason is that information theory is probably the most confusing misnomer in science ever. "Pattern Theory" is the correct name.
ReplyDeleteDon't you think proposing to rename a field without studying it is rather arrogant?
What physical mechanism can create models of reality and apply them to achieve an outcome?
Mutation and natural selection. This has been known for 150 years now.
It is not a scientific position and the Tuning paper has not created proof for (...or a reason to belief that) the existence of algorithms apart from a mind that created it.
It's hard to conduct a conversation with someone who hasn't read the paper of Turing (not "Tuning") and doesn't understand what he achieved and why it is relevant. You need to do some more reading before you can argue effectively.
For examples that supports the existence of mind and therefore information separate from matter I will refer you to a publication by some of your countrymen.
"The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul"
by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'leary
You're very confused. They are not my "countrymen" and their book is regarded as a bad joke by most neuroscientists.
I apologize in advance for the fact that I find the rest of your writing too confused or incoherent to respond to.
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteThe abstract of the first article you sited seems to say they have hope that they will someday produce organic polymers under preobiotic conditions, and that chemila process offer the best hope.
And are oligonucleotides enough to make life. It seems that from a quick review of the articles posted that is as far as they've gotten.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Shallit said...
ReplyDelete"Don't you think proposing to rename a field without studying it is rather arrogant?"
=====
This is not an argument. You are clearly qualified to disagree based on supported arguments but you did not... Why? Is it maybe because you require the confusion of classes between patterns vs. information to maintain your materialistic argument? Why else would you be pulling on the strings of confusing patterns? What is the point you try to make about patterns that can be confusing if it is considered to be information in different contexts?
I did tell you that the confusion of interpreting patterns proofs that there is a non material interpreter required for successful communication and successful communication is a known phenomenon between minds.
=====
"Mutation and natural selection. This has been known for 150 years now."
=====
This is an argument, well done, its your only argument! But it is 150 year old and about 50 years out of date. However I never thought that you will not find enough scientists that still waddle in the confusion of mutation and natural selection(M&NS). Since you made it clear that, according to you, science is a populist effort, I don't expect that you would make an effort to evaluate dissent form M&NS.
====
"It is not a scientific position and the Tuning paper has not created proof for (...or a reason to belief that) the existence of algorithms apart from a mind that created it.
It's hard to conduct a conversation with someone who hasn't read the paper of Turing (not "Tuning") and doesn't understand what he achieved and why it is relevant. You need to do some more reading before you can argue effectively."
====
If one typing error is the reason that you make a conclusion about what I have read and understood about Turning's work, then I can see why I am having trouble maintaining an honest discussion with you.
I will make it easy... What about Turning's work constitute scientific evidence for materialism to be the only rational view of algorithms? I have not found it in his work but you seem to have and you are unwilling to use it to back up your claim.
=====
"You're very confused. They are not my "countrymen" and their book is regarded as a bad joke by most neuroscientists."
=====
Thank you for supporting my contention that you consider science a populist effort. (Sorry for the error about your nationality, its not part of the argument.)
Let me give another challenge to a materialist view of mind and the origin of information:
The question about the patterns that is claimed to constitute human long term memory (LTM). Where is human memory stored? If it is material and created through M&NS it should be easy to find memory containing patterns in the brain or anywhere associated to a human being.
Why is the study of human LTM so convoluted and inconclusive in pointing out;
1.) Where it is physically stored and
2.) How it account for our known ability to recall long term memories and maintain our personality?
The claims about LTM published clearly has no "Pattern Theoretic" base of support. This is evident from the fact that there is no consistent pattern in neural networks in the brain, it is always changing. But still we are able to maintain our personality and remember things. I think someone like you should be able to evaluate the difficulty in migrating memories on a constant basis in a system as complex and integrated as the brain.
To support my position about LTM:
ReplyDeleteFrom:
"You must remember this"
15 September 2001
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Bryant Furlow
"To lock a memory in place, most researchers say you need to shore up its synaptic connections. One way is to build more synapses; another is to make existing ones bigger and more stable. Either way requires cellular building blocks in the form of proteins. Indeed, injecting chemicals that block protein manufacture in the brain can disrupt the formation of long-term memories—but not short-term ones.
It sounds plausible enough. But building permanent, stable connections is no simple process. Nearly all of the brain's molecules, including those that form the neural connections, are replaced every week or two. How long-lasting memories can be stored with such distinctly impermanent media has confounded theorists for years.
The problem, says neurobiologist Sandra Peña de Ortiz of the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan, is that molecular turnover would eventually degrade these structural proteins. They'd become hopelessly fuzzy, like photocopies of photocopies. No less a luminary than Francis Crick—co-discoverer of the chemical structure of DNA—first pointed this out, back in 1984.
Electron microscopes have also shown how far from stable neurons are. Their outstretched branches move from day to day. "Imaging studies show strikingly dynamic synapses," says neurobiologist Seth Grant from Edinburgh University."
This article discuss the study that propose DNA to be in some way a storage medium for LTM. That sound fantastic! Just think how easy such a DNA LTM storage and retrieval process would be to justify by M&NS. Lucky it is just an hypothesis with very preliminary investigation supporting it.
You are generating information right now.What is material basis for encoding it?Is your process of thinking material?
ReplyDeleteThe information is generated by the interaction of matter and energy in the brain, of course.
I agree 100% . Lets add that interactions are within framework of all the laws of chemistry,biology etc...
But we have a little problem: interactions are happening in a very regular,controled ,patterned way.
What or who is controling them ?
BTW my interactions generate lots of useless information.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Shallit: "It's hard to conduct a conversation with someone who hasn't read the paper of Turing (not "Tuning") and doesn't understand what he achieved and why it is relevant. You need to do some more reading before you can argue effectively."
ReplyDelete====
Michael: "If one typing error is the reason that you make a conclusion about what I have read and understood about Turning's work, then I can see why I am having trouble maintaining an honest discussion with you.
I will make it easy... What about Turning's work constitute scientific evidence for materialism to be the only rational view of algorithms? I have not found it in his work but you seem to have and you are unwilling to use it to back up your claim."
Er Michael, it's Alan Turing, not Turning. If you can't even get the man's name right after three tries, why are you surprised that no one takes your blithering seriously?
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteYou pass the test! Patterns of letters are important but more so to the interpreter's objective than the coders intention. But in this case I had a very specific intention. To see what this pattern... "Turning", would generate, just to make sure my argument is strong. It is now confirmed by you, but I still hope good judgment will prevail in the end.
I have to correct the following statement I made above:
ReplyDelete"...But it is 150 year old and about 50 years out of date..."
It should read:
"But it is 150 year old and has only been an argument and has never been a valid mechanism for anything."
My change of hart comes from a debate between the eminent Prof. Massimo Pigliucci and the eminent Prof. Jerry Fodor.
Can be downloaded from:
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-49897/TS-358827.mp3
P.S. Another contributor gave me this link. Thank you.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
You pass the test! Patterns of letters are important but more so to the interpreter's objective than the coders intention. But in this case I had a very specific intention. To see what this pattern... "Turning", would generate, just to make sure my argument is strong. It is now confirmed by you, but I still hope good judgment will prevail in the end.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
"I MEANT to make that bone-headed mistake showing that I know so little on the topic I couldn't even get the name right!"
You IDiots and your excuses get funnier every day!
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteIf you were at all aware of the arguments (...regarding patters and its application as information), the relevance of my test would be clear to you. But it is clear that you are incapable of seeing when you have been outsmarted.
I actually thought that you might be the fool to proof my point, not that I wished it to be the case. You have more than enough burdens to bear.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteIf you were at all aware of the arguments (...regarding patters and its application as information), the relevance of my test would be clear to you. But it is clear that you are incapable of seeing when you have been outsmarted.
More BWAHAHAHAHA!!
You do realize that the more you offer up your anally-extracted excuses to cover your dreadful boner, the more stupid you appear, don't you?
No, you probably don't.
But it is clear that you are incapable of seeing when you have been outsmarted.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that it's not about reality. It's about who wins rhetorically.
David said...
ReplyDelete"It appears that it's not about reality. It's about who wins rhetorically."
I wanted to use mind games since no arguments were presented on the other side. My arguments still stand and I am waiting for counter arguments. I even had some fun in proving my point through the behavior of my detractor/s.
My experience is that metaphysical positions are usually very personal and people does not like to argue about their beliefs. You would never expect such a state of affairs to apply to a scientific enterprise.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
"It appears that it's not about reality. It's about who wins rhetorically."
I wanted to use mind games since no arguments were presented on the other side. My arguments still stand and I am waiting for counter arguments. I even had some fun in proving my point through the behavior of my detractor/s.
LOL! Keep flailing Michael! Your attempts to save a bit of face with the dishonest spin are hilarious! Simple fact is you are so ignorant on the topic you didn't even know Turing's name. That's just one of many reasons no one takes your woo seriously.
You are angry little elf!
ReplyDeleteOleg:
ReplyDelete====
The genome of a mammal has the size of a few gigabytes. This quantity should be compared to the typical amount of entropy involved in thermal processes. When one gram of water is cooled by 1 degree Celsius it gives off 4.2 J of heat and with it, 0.014 J/K of entropy. To translate this amount of entropy into bits, divide it by the Boltzmann constant and by the natural logarithm of 8. The result is 500 billion gigabytes ....
The amounts of entropy flowing through living organisms is orders and orders of magnitude larger than the amount of information stored in genomes. That's why the balance of Shannon information and entropy is a non-issue in evolution. It's like looking at the balance sheet of a large bank and seeing that its balance has gone up by a penny and ignoring millions of dollars come come in and go out.
====
"The genome of a mammal has the size of a few gigabytes."
But a mammal is more than its genome.
"This quantity should be compared to the typical amount of entropy involved in thermal processes. "
Why is that true?
"To translate this amount of entropy into bits"
Did you mean bytes?
Cornelius wrote:
ReplyDelete"The genome of a mammal has the size of a few gigabytes."
But a mammal is more than its genome.
Feel free to provide your own estimate of information capacity, Cornelius.
"This quantity should be compared to the typical amount of entropy involved in thermal processes. "
Why is that true?
It was the original creationist argument that information found in living organisms could not arise spontaneously because the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibits that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with entropy and we know that Shannon information is entropy with a minus sign. The creationist argument was premised on that. Now, it's true that in a closed system entropy simply cannot go down, it can only increase or stay constant once it reaches a maximum.* However, in an open system entropy flows in and out, so the net amount of entropy can change. The 2nd law of thermodynamics no longer prohibits a decrease in entropy and a corresponding increase of information in an open system. I provided a simple estimate of the amount of entropy flows above. It exceeds the amount of information in a genome by orders and orders of magnitude. So folks like Sewell should drop the argument.
"To translate this amount of entropy into bits"
Did you mean bytes?
I did.
*If we ignore small fluctuations.