Can chaotic random processes give rise to information as HIllary Clinton implies to the New York TImes?
whirlingmerc asked:
Many researchers into information sciences such as Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner have suggested random processes do not give rise to complex information. Even pointing to point mutations in antiobitic resistant bacteria as actualy loosing information. Often an antibiotic atackes a particular enyme and a bacteria may point mutate without that enzyme and having a loss on information. Arguably every point mutation results in a loss on information given mathemetical evidense toward a original designer. see “In t?e Beginning Was Information” Do random processes give rise to complex information, meaning ful languages and interrelationships contrary to laws of decay and entropy or not? or is it an area of reaonable debate where Hillary should not find it :”shocking” that one disagrees with her?
Many researchers into information sciences such as Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner have suggested random processes do not give rise to complex information. Even pointing to point mutations in antiobitic resistant bacteria as actualy loosing information. Often an antibiotic atackes a particular enyme and a bacteria may point mutate without that enzyme and having a loss on information. Arguably every point mutation results in a loss on information given mathemetical evidense toward a original designer. see “In t?e Beginning Was Information” Do random processes give rise to complex information, meaning ful languages and interrelationships contrary to laws of decay and entropy or not? or is it an area of reaonable debate where Hillary should not find it :”shocking” that one disagrees with her?
Are antibiotic resistant bacteria a result of loss of information or a gian of informaiton. Is Hillary looking at it too superfically?
Create a video blog…instantly.
Tags: Bacteria Information, Gian, Lee Spetner
July 22nd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
You simply CANNOT do better than to read this article, by Richard Dawkins…
You say that some researchers claim “random processes do not give rise to complex information”. You have to be very careful of the word ‘information’ here, but if you rephrase the statement as “random processes do not ever give rise to complexity”, it is clearly false.
Incessant randomness is a poor candidate for producing complexity, but even it MUST be capable of doing so sometimes. This follows from the definition of randomness - without direction, the random changes simply must OCCASSIONALLY stumble onto a complex design. This alone is enough to refute the above researchers.
However, biologists don’t consider chance alone to be sufficient to generate complexity on such a regular basis as seen, say, in the human body. Rather, another process must be operating in addition. Of course, Darwin discovered the answer: natural selection. For the purposes of the present answer, natural selection has the ability to MAINTAIN small (and therefore fairly probable) random changes in a ‘beneficial’ direction. And this in turn allows the small beneficial mutations to add up, eventually producing stunning displays of complexity, like the eye.
(Hope that doesn’t sound too obscurantist!)
July 24th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Dude, you are so full of propaganda - scientific sounding phrases that you clearly don’t understand, or you would realise they are total bunk propaganda attacks. Evolution works by NATURAL SELECTION. Random mutations (including repetition of stretches of dna: increased information by your definition, especially if followed by a point mutation on one repetition) only provide the variation for Natural Selection to choose from (and are essential). Random processes don’t give rise to ‘complex information’ (sic.), Natural Selection does. It’s not even worth saying anymore. If you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) is relevant to information theory, then you have been totally bamboozled by semantics.