Consider the following situation:  Take a random letter generator and begin to 
fill in the squares of a block of 10 letters.  With a fast computer, it will 
not take long to have generated almost every word in the English dictionary.  
Many of the words would certainly be classified as information since they are 
commonly used for communication.

One could theoretically write short sentences in a similar manner that make 
sense to anyone reading them.  I am sure you recall the million monkeys with 
word processors trick.

The end result is certainly a form of information unless you intentionally 
restrict the definition of information to exclude anything that is generated by 
random processes.  Information is added by this process if for instance a 
sentence appears that states that "Tomorrow it will be cloudy and cold".  We 
did not know ahead of time what the weather will be tomorrow, but our randomly 
generated sentence may be correct.  To us, this is new information.

I suspect that there are similar natural phenomena that generate information.  
It is unfair to use the origin of these processes as a technique to exclude 
their outputs by definition.

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions


Yes, this may be true, but I think the basic question you need to answer is:  
"Does this process add information?"  No random process can create information. 
 That appears to be self-evident.
 
Jojo
 
 
  
----- Original Message ----- 
  
From:   Axil Axil   
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 5:57   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of   Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
  


  
Crystals are formed through the   maximization of disorder. 
  
Designer materials: Entropy   (Entropy is the thermodynamic   property toward 
quilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation) can lead   to order, paving the 
route to nanostructures.
  
Entropy is a consequence of the   expansion of the universe.
  
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-entropy-paving-route-nanostructures.html
  
 
  
Glotzer explains that this isn't   really disorder creating order—entropy needs 
its image updated. Instead, she   describes it as a measure of possibilities. 
If you could turn off gravity and   empty a bag full of dice into a jar, the 
floating dice would point every which   way. However, if you keep adding dice, 
eventually space becomes so limited   that the dice have more options to align 
face-to-face. The same thing happens   to the nanoparticles, which are so small 
that they feel entropy's influence   more strongly than gravity's.
  






  
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
  
    
    
The formation of crystals with the apparent increase     in information is a 
process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding     laws governing the 
formation of ice crystals.  While the crystals     appear to have more 
information, the crystal formation itself is a random     application of 
chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than     another crystal 
formation.  To illustrate my point, ask yourself this:     "Does one crystal, 
like a snow flake, tell you more information about its     process of 
formation, that you can not get from another snow flake?"      In the end, the 
crystals itself  are all products randomly     created.
    
 
    
There is a concept called "Specified Complexity"     wherein one has a 
mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something     that is created by 
an Intelligence or something that is created by Random     chance and physical 
laws.  For example, when you walk down a beach and     find scribblings on the 
beach sand, and it is shaped like an "I".  You     can not immediately say that 
this scribbling was written by a man.      That scribbling has no "specified 
complexity".  The information is not     complex and specified enough.  
However, when you see "I love Lucy"     written on the beach sand, you can 
immediately say that that writting is     from an intelligent being.  Why?  
because the complexity is huge,     the chance is low and the information of 
the writting is specified - that     is, it contains knowledge from a known 
source, the human language.      Hence, using the criteria of specified 
complexity, one can say that "I love     Lucy" is specified complex while the 
letter "I" while it contains     information, is complex but not specified 
complex.  Specified     Complexity is a property that allows us to judge 
whether something has its     origins from an intelligence or something from 
random processes.
    
 
    
Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both     information and is 
specified complex and its random formation impossible, we     can conclude is 
was designed by an Intelligence.
    
 
    
 
    
But once again, I am getting ahead of myself.  We     will discuss specified 
complexity in a later post.
    
 
    
 
    
Jojo
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
----- Original Message ----- 
    
      
From:       David Roberson 
      
To:       vortex-l@eskimo.com 
      
Sent:       Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM
      
      
      
Subject:       Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
      


      
Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase       the 
information content of a system is too broad.  The formation of a       crystal 
from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the       random 
motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force       leads to 
the final crystal structure.  Entropy is increased for the       overall system 
by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region       becomes less 
random.
      
 
      
With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system       
boundaries become critical.
      
 
      
Dave
      
      
      
-----Original       Message-----
From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55       am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic       Definitions

      
Yes,  That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited 
and fallacious idea.    Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell 
structures, RNA and others.

Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that 
slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA.  Why, because 
random mutation can not explain the existence of "Information" within our 
DNA.  There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that 
increases the Information Content of a system.  Random processes results in 
entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  I will discuss DNA information in a 
future post.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Blanton" <hohlr...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions


> Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over
> simplification of genetics:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml
>
> T
>
> 








 

Reply via email to