Replies

I don't usually post to another thread something I've posted to a previous one, but I wish to make this exception. From This thread:

For a long time now I’ve been suggesting that the evolutionists should be malleable on the randomness tenet. I said that because it seemed like a good way to forge peace between that side and intelligent design with regard to teaching children in public schools.

However, after this research on information theory, algorithms and mathematics in genetics – in particular, the symbolization – I’m even more convinced that evolutionists insist on randomness to their own peril.

I realize the evolutionist position is that randomness does not mean the same thing as ‘roll of the dice’ – because random mutations are culled by natural selection. Nevertheless, the initiating event is a random mutation.

The presence of algorithmic information even within junk DNA (Complexity International – Brief Comments on Junk DNA [pdf]) is counter-indicative of randomness per se. The Chaitin papers [ps] explain why:

We now turn to Kolmogorov's and Chaitin's proposed definition of randomness or patternlessness. Let us consider once more the scientist confronted by experimental data, a long binary sequence. This time he in not interested in predicting future observations, but only in determining if there is a pattern in his observations, if there is a simple theory that explains them. If he found a way of compressing his observations into a short computer program which makes the computer calculate them, he would say that the sequence follows a law, that it has pattern. But if there is no short program, then the sequence has no pattern--it is random. That is to say, the complexity C(S) of a finite binary sequence S is the size of the smallest program which makes the computer calculate it. Those binary sequences S of a given length n for which C(S) is greatest are the most complex binary sequences of length n, the random or patternless ones. This is a general formulation of the definition…

In other words - to sustain the pillar, one would have to presume that random information content can be algorithmic (which is, by definition, not random.)

Even more to the point, the physics of symbols (H.H. Pattee) and the current state of the art (Rocha and Language-like features in junk DNA) strongly suggest that new research will show that mutations were opportunistic.

This would cause no violence to the theory of evolution or metaphysical naturalism were it not for the insistence on randomness in mutations. For one thing, they might have suggested that the mutations were either random or were opportunistic self-mutations - where the genetic language-like processes read an opportunity in the environment and mutated to gain advantage.

The intelligent design response to that could have been two-fold. First, that the capability itself is evidence of a designer. Second, that opportunistic mutations were additionally guided by external design, showing by information theory that symbolism and language could not have evolved sufficiently to account for the evidence, e.g. Cambrian Explosion. In response, the evolutionists and metaphysical naturalists would write both off to the anthropic principle.

In any case, I predict that intelligent design at first cause will be underscored since there is no origin for the minimal necessary information content whether or not opportunistic (Yockey seventh message).

In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. -soliton-

They said the same thing 20 years ago.

They will still be saying it 100 years from now. This amino acid stuff is totally stupid and the proof that evolution is pseudo-science. You can make all the amino acids you want and mix them any way you like. You can even make all the proteins you like and mix them any way you want. You will still not get DNA. The morons of atheism/evolution have it completely backwards. You do not get DNA from proteins or amino acids. It is DNA and RNA that make amino acids and proteins. DNA has never arisen by random chance anywhere and you need a string of at least a half million DNA bases exactly arranged to begin to have a chance at creating any kind of living thing. No legitimate scientist proposes such a thing as being possible.