I have been considering the aspects of information theory vs. the evolutionist concept of information, which they also call information theory, with the additional concept of "emergent information".
Information in the cultural understanding is usually connected with meaning, and information theory is connected with the creation, transmission, and receipt of that meaning in a reliable manner. For evolution, however, another definition must be added. In the process of evolution, any random data can become a utility in the process. The data does not have meaning in the human-comprehension sense; the data is conferred meaning post facto by the organism by virtue of its ability to use the data. Hence the concept of emergent information, since the previously random and accidental data has proven useful.
This is not at all the sense in which information theory works, if one is considering communications at the human level. And it is deceptive to call it communications theory and pretend that it fits into normal communications theory.
Emergent information is a concept that fits nicely into evolution, which is a concept that covers any and all consequences or effects of natural selection as a cause. In fact the idea of taking random data and conferring meaning upon it also takes all possible consequences and effects and declares that they are because of emergent information. There is no possible negation of this concept.
This process of a single cause producing all effects regardless of their properties is well outside the idea of cause and effect being the basis of scientific examination. If there is no possible negation or falsification of the idea, then it is a religious proposition, not a scientific hypothesis that is verifiable. If the concept cannot fail, then it cannot be verified either. Conversely, if the concept cannot be verified because it cannot fail, then there are no experiments that can produce anything but success, even when they produce no results at all.
This is precisely the Atheist argument against prayer, and against God. Many choose not to accept the idea of a first cause on the basis of its failure to be a valid subject of scientific investigation. However, they have no similar qualms about evolution as a valid scientific proposition.
Under scrutiny, evolution is a materialist religious proposition, without the possibility of failing any test of scientific experimentation. It satisfies, by definition, the Atheist requirement for “evidence in order to believe a thing”, because there is no possible evidence that can exist to disprove it. So in this sense it is a tautology, having been defined into success.
13 comments:
That site I often link to lists potential falsification under every subsection.
I have previously disagreed that their designated "potential falsifications" would indeed falsify evolution. Rather evolution and/or common descent would be modified under the same or similar nomenclature to accommodate the errata that they use in their falsification definitions. For example, a lack of common descent does not falsify evolution, which could be redefined as being sourced from several (or even many) separate start points. Similar arguments could and would be made for each case of errata; and each case would be termed an internal issue to evolution, one being investigated, but not to be considered a problem for the overall theory - which is hardly even defined at all and is amorphous enough to accommodate any eventuality. Evolution would survive in some similar format.
After all, their argument is that evolution may not be questioned unless there is a better alternative (material of course) being offered. Simple falsification of individual aspects of evolution is no threat to its survival.
A microbe that has not changed ever, still fits within evolutionary theory, as does a microbe that changed just moments ago. Same goes for brilliant new adaptations (assuming there are some) and fatal defects: all caused by the exact same thing. There are no effects that are not caused by evolution, and that destroys the ability of cause and effect to produce meaningful differentiating results.
Martin-
Let's look at the first two-
1) The universal genetic code. The proof of common decent is the universal genetic code. The fact is that there is not a universe genetic code. This is not a problem for the theory- it is almost a universal genetic code- we can imagine why it isn't perfect, we can't find anything too very different…
Do you think that any discovery regarding the genetic code would falsify something so loose? I think not.
2) The 'nested hierarchical' organization. But we know from recent studies that there isn't a 'tree of life', but rather "web of life".
"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life
(Sorry for the lousy link, but it does include all the relevant info.)
But is anyone saying this is a problem for the theory of common decent? The evidence that was used to prove it is not accurate. But that is not a problem, is it?
For another interesting look at how much the known facts can change without anyone questioning the theory look here--
http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html
(The proof of common ancestor with human and chimp was our 99% same genetic code. On finding that the code is much different than that, we now say that the Y chromosome is evolving faster than expected.)
Do we need to continue?
Oops-
I forgot to mention-
Stan, this does get to the heart of the matter- brilliant!
Sonic,
"1) The universal genetic code. The proof of common decent is the universal genetic code. The fact is that there is not a universe genetic code. This is not a problem for the theory- it is almost a universal genetic code- we can imagine why it isn't perfect, we can't find anything too very different…"
I don't think you read it. Life on earth shares the genetic code. This doesn't prove common descent by itself, but if we found some monkeys that use entirely different genetic code than G U A and C then that would falsify common descent. Obviously all animals are not related if some of them have entirely different genetic code.
"2) The 'nested hierarchical' organization. But we know from recent studies that there isn't a 'tree of life', but rather "web of life"."
The only thing's that been added to the picture is that prokaryotes have the ability to transfer genes laterally, without having to pass them to offspring, and thus the bottom of the tree is more web like. But the tree remains the same for eukaryotes and indvidual family trees. The primate family tree, for instance, can be constructed with morphology or genetics, and each independent tree matches.
"But is anyone saying this is a problem for the theory of common decent? The evidence that was used to prove it is not accurate. But that is not a problem, is it?"
Because it isn't a problem. The picture was once that a single life form branched into all the modern lifeforms, but now as evidence comes in the picture is that prokaryotes transferred genes laterally at first, until eukaryotes developed and the tree began pretty much as first postulated.
"The proof of common ancestor with human and chimp was our 99% same genetic code. On finding that the code is much different than that, we now say that the Y chromosome is evolving faster than expected."
The evidence of human/chimp common ancestry at first was nothing more than morphology. The study of the two chromosomes showed shared genetic features, such as viruses embedded in the chromosome and other genetic markers.
Let’s consider some examples of possible deviations.
1.Deviation: DNA is found to have other basic structures instead of GUAC, say RLPB, YUSR, etc. This would be seen as proof that evolution is so strong a natural force that it can accommodate many different “languages”, and even starting points… a solidifying notion.
2. Deviation: Many life forms do not use DNA to code their formation and existence. This would be seen as proof that evolution does not even require a single language type, or even a language at all, in order to succeed. As always, the study goes on (and on, and on) and just because we don’t understand it has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.
Brings to mind one of my favorites. A PBS special (Nature?) last year covering lemurs made this evolutionary process clear. Early in the show the announcer, in sonorous, official-sounding tones, said that the mottled lemur had to hide in forest to survive, and therefore evolved the dark, mottled coat.
Later in the same show, the same announcer proclaimed that the brilliant Golden Lemur needed to breed and therefore evolved the spectacular gold color to stand out in the forest in order to be seen.
Evolution does everything. Evolutionists make up stories for all eventualities.
Martin-
I did read the article (many times actually)
From the article "All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this."
This is to say there isn't a universal genetic code. Universal means without exception.
This is not a problem, because the code isn't that different, and someone had predicted it might include such anomolies earlier.
It may be true that this isn't a real problem,but I can't buy that a lack of universal genetic code would falsify evolution. I have empirical evidence to the contrary.
2) The article I linked to included-
"Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species."
So the problem of no tree includes both plant and animal- for the same reason- gene transfer.
Nothing above proves that there isn't a common ancestor.
It's just that UGC and TOL aren't what the theory is all about.
Sonic,
The lack of a universal genetic code would falsify the "common descent" hypothesis because if two animals use entirely different genetic codes then clearly they can't be related.
As for the tree, science is always updating and changing because it's inductive. Your criticism here does not in any way affect common descent. So gene transfer, which is known to occur, is an extra part of the picture. It doesn't and cannot even in principle falsify common descent.
"The reverse case is also known. Caenorhabditis elegans and C. Briggsae are physically very similar organisms. It takes an expert to distinguish them. The two have near-identical biology, even down to the minutiae of developmental processes. Suprisingly, however, their genomes are not so similar. C. elegans has more than 700 chemoreceptor genes when C. briggsae gets on by just 430. There are also many genes unique to each of them."
(The Great Gene Fiasco - P.A. Wahid)
Martin-
1) I agree that nothing here falsifies common descent.
2) We seem to have a disagreement as to if all life uses a UGC. I posit that It is a fact that not all life forms use the UGC. Am I mistaken?
3) I agree that science updates. I agree that gene transfer cannot in principle falsify common descent. The fact that the TOL is not constructible given the factual evidence does not falsify common descent. That's the point.
BTW- none of this makes the watchmaker anything but blind.
I just think the evidence might be explained in other ways . Of course I'm more familiar with physics and there are lots of ways that gets explained-- (Copenhagen to Many Worlds and everything in-between)
Is existance itself an information ? Something existing in space-time contains dimensions, color or other characteristics. Does this mean material existance is, or neccessarily carries, information ?
Ahmed,
Good point. Everything exists with characteristics that can be measured (on a macro scale, anyway). So if information is not defined as carrying meaning from human to human, or intellect to intellect, then your point is right on the money. Humans are able to take measurements (data) and then attribute meaning to them a posteriori.
Applying this to other moving systems seems - on the surface - to work also. A billiard ball changes course when it comes into contact with information that another surface is in its path.
This definition of information seems to dilute the term "information" far beyond its original intent. But even as a very specious derivative it is hard to argue against. I'll have to think about it some more. Perhaps there is a better word for it than "information", but I don't know what that word is.
Post a Comment