Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 18, 2010, 01:25 (5202 days ago) @ dhw

Matt has referred us again to a method showing that a process of random selection increases the chances of information getting to its destination. He concludes:
> 
> 1. Introducing randomness in the transmission process of genetic information means that randomness increases the chances that information will be successfully transferred to its target.
> 
> 2. Those that would assert life is designed now have to mathematically justify how they would tell the difference between a random transmission and an intelligent one.
> 
> Fortunately I don't make any such assertions, but unfortunately I'm out of my depth in such discussions. This need not deter me, however, from asking a naïve question:
> 
> Where does the information come from in the first place?-A very valid question, but it doesn't impact the scenario I'm discussing here. This isn't abiogenesis I'm talking about. David uses Dembski regularly, and Dembski uses arguments based (poorly) on information theory to try and argue that life processes aren't random. What a result like this one will suggest (to the mathematically inclined) is that randomizing information transmission increases the chances of success.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"