More "miscellany" PART TWO (General)

by dhw, Monday, May 22, 2023, 15:27 (311 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

INFORMATION IS THE BASIS OF LIVING BIOLOGY

DAVID: Information theory is not misleading or confusing except to you. Used by ID folks and fully understood. Information always requires a mind to recognize it. Otherwise it is dormant. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Information cannot create anything – you’ve just said yourself that it is dormant. […] Living biology contains and produces information. Information (which is dormant) does not create living biology, so how can it be the basis?

DAVID: The information that drives life is not dormant. It is in constant use always as cells follow the instructions. Yes, cells automatically act like a mind.

dhw: Look at your bolded statement above: Yesterday: “Information always requires a mind…otherwise it is dormant.” Today it is not dormant. You see what a confused, misleading muddle you get yourself into! Of course it’s dormant, even in your latest statement. It does nothing until it is used by the cells, whether they have their own mind or not.

DAVID: Yes information is dormant until used. But information cannot appear de novo. A mind creates it and a mind or a mind-like cell interprets and uses it.

So when the wind blew the rock down on the man’s head and killed him, the masses of information contained in that incident were created by a mind, were they? Of course it takes a mind to extrapolate information. But information does not create anything, so I repeat: how can it be the basis of living biology? What is your objection to the statement that biochemistry is the basis of living biology?

Mid-Triassic flying reptile explosion

DAVID: Darwins' interpretation of evolution keeps dwindling. Punc-equinc negates Darwin and requires a designer.

dhw: It seems that you are only concerned with knocking Darwin. Why don’t you comment on the arguments? The suggestion is that new conditions trigger the explosions - a bit of a contrast to your theory that your God speciates in anticipation of new conditions, and also a bit of a problem for your theory that your God does not control the conditions, and also a bit of a problem for your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us plus food, but designed all these different flying reptiles instead.

DARWIN: The suggestion that new conditions trigger is pure Darwin.

And what is wrong with that suggestion? Why do you think it makes more sense for your God to look into his crystal ball and design new species in readiness for future changes? Do you think adaptation comes before environmental change? Of course it doesn’t. So why should innovations be different? Changes come in response to conditions, not in anticipation of them!

DAVID: But I agree God's evolution dashes off in all directions instead of directly getting to humans. Only God knows why.

I have offered you three possible theistic reasons why, but you prefer to stick to your belief that your God invented a messy, clumsy, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him.

Mudskippers

QUOTES: they took the structures they already had and they started using them in a completely different way.
"Hypothetically, we can look at walking fish like mudskippers as nature’s example of an
ongoing evolutionary experiment,
says Gordon."
(David’s bold)

DAVID: the bold says it all. It shows us how the aquatic beginning of life ended up on land.

And it shows one way in which evolution works: cell communities (structures) using themselves in different ways – illustrating their astonishing flexibility and adaptability and potential for innovation. As you say, it also shows how the transition from water to land may have begun, illustrating the continuity of the process which is the basis of the theory of common descent. And we should not ignore the terminology you have bolded: an ongoing evolutionary experiment – a term you normally disapprove of. Many thanks for this fascinating post.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum