Code, Information, and Design (Evolution)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, March 27, 2008, 21:09 (5872 days ago) @ Matt

I've decided to have a go at replying to Matt line by line:
(But the software will only allow me to do so in two parts, since the post is too long). PART 1: - Matt: "We know that information exists in atomic particles." 
GPJ: This of course depends on what you mean by "information" here. 
I may be somewhat old fashioned on this but I would say that there 
is mass and energy in atoms, but it only produces "information" if 
an observer observes it and records the results. - Matt: "But how an atom can "know" it's being observed by an outside 
source is amazing by itself." 
GPJ: It would be but it isn't because it doesn't. - Matt: "The problems to consider, in my humble opinion, are how these 
pieces "know" to fit together."
GPJ: This is more anthropomorphism. They are not conscious beings and don't know anything. - Matt: "How does the information in DNA "know" to attach itself to the DNA strand?" 
GPJ: The information in DNA is coded by the sequence of bases (ACGT). It is physically part of the DNA. How the information is copied from one molecule to another is indeed remarkable. The series of actions to carry this out has all been "programmed" by evolution into the cell's complex chemical system. It is not solely in the DNA itself. - Matt: "Why, when I look at a mountain in the distance; the information which is carried at the speed of light to register in my brain, does it not conflict with the other information coming from the mountain behind me?"
GPJ: I don't quite understand this. It seems to suppose that light can pass through Matt's head and impinge on his retina! - Matt: "How does my eyeball "know" to pick up only the information I'm looking at?"
GPJ: Why should it pick up any other information? You turn your head and the light entering your eyes is light that has come from the direction you are looking. The eye is a directional receiver, like a radar dish. - Matt: "Quantum theories have proven that science isn't really objective observance of natural phenomena after all."
GPJ: Not so. - Matt: "Observation can and does change the outcome of an otherwise "normal", repeatable occurrence." 
GPJ: This is to be expected on sub-atomic scales, because it is impossible to observe without disrupting the system. - Matt: "Therefore, science subjects, and is in itself subjective. This subjectivity IS the reality we live in...there is no such thing as the objective observer." 
GPJ: This is not a justifiable conclusion. Most observations of macroscopic events are perfectly objective. - Matt: "I agree that information is an issue. What carries the information isn't. Since we are all made of energy on an atomic level, we are all made of "information"."
GPJ: This seems to be saying that energy and information are the same thing. This is nonsense. - Matt: "The physical, observable part of that structure is what science studies; whether it be DNA, or atoms, or whatever. Science cannot study unobservable phenomena."
GPJ: Agreed. - Matt: "However... everyone knows it's there." 
GPJ: You speak for yourself! I of course take the view that unobservable phenomena are not phenomena. I'm assuming here of course that you mean "unobservable" in principle, rather than because of our lack of knowledge of how to make the observations or because our current technology is inadequate.