Logic and evolution (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, July 21, 2016, 13:03 (703 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why do you resist the scientific information which tells us that many adaptations are shown to occur with a loss of information? Yes loss is a change, and a new arrangement of the existing information, but not 'new' information. I agree with you that new species may require new information which is why I suggest that God dabbles.

dhw: I do not resist it at all. Some adaptations do incur loss of information and some do not. So what? Until you explain what you mean by “all the information needed for evolution”, I will go on pointing out that even adaptation requires adjustment to new external information, and external information is information. And just as a new arrangement of existing matter provides new information, the new instructions required to deal with it (a new “arrangement of existing information”) constitute new information.
I agree with the rest of your post
.

DAVID: Under the dabble theory I agree with you. See my entry today in the Oxygen note. It is very possible that dabble and deletion both exist to advance evolution.

I can't see anything in the entry about deletion. At least you now seem to have abandoned the claim that innovation is possible without additional information. However, I remain bewildered by your belief that loss of information might be RESPONSIBLE for (as opposed to accompanying) evolutionary advances/innovations. This flies in the face of all logic. (See my second post.)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum