Atheism 101 FAQ pt. 2
As promised, here comes another Q/A.
Q: Where does all of the incredibly complex information come from that is stored within DNA? Information doesn’t just appear by itself. Someone has to put it there.
A: This is probably the most interesting question of all those on the list. At least it would be if it were asked with an underlying dose of intellectual honesty. The problem with it is that it's intentionally vague. I'm far from being an expert on information theory, yet even I can tell that to ask such a question one must first provide a definition of information to work on. Somehow I get the feeling that what Creationists actually have in mind is a particular understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding - of information that might favour their own agenda if they manage to phrase the question with enough ambiguity. But as far as reality goes, genetic information "generates itself." RNA and Protein splicing, Frame-shit mutations, deletions, duplications, insertions, etc., all these occurrences result in mutations and, as a consequence, in genetic information which is slightly different from the original one. The resulting genetic code, whether Creationists like it or not, is new information generated via imperfect natural mechanisms. The usual rebuke made by Creationists to this is that such mechanisms either simply act on existing information modifying it or they simply give way to detrimental or, at best, neutral mutations. All of a sudden they demand instances of such mechanisms giving rise not just to mutations, but to beneficial mutations - which was obviously their hidden agenda right from the start - regardless of the fact that benefit is in no way a prerogative of genetic mutations and of the resulting new information, since benefit is always relative to the environment. To put it in the terms of Information Theory, mutations create Shannon Information content in the form of new nucleotide chains, whereas selection will increase the specificity of the new information once the content is transformed into active protein with a function, thereby crushing all Creationist hopes of finding their safety in Information Theory. One could then provide examples of beneficial mutations, such as the evolution of photoreceptors in mammals (for further information see Michael H. Rowe, Trichromatic Color Vision in Primates, News in Physiological Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 3, 93-98, June 2002, relevant section available with full text here.), but not even that could possibly shake the Creationists' conviction that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has to be wrong because their deity cannot possibly be.
As promised, here comes another Q/A.
Q: Where does all of the incredibly complex information come from that is stored within DNA? Information doesn’t just appear by itself. Someone has to put it there.
A: This is probably the most interesting question of all those on the list. At least it would be if it were asked with an underlying dose of intellectual honesty. The problem with it is that it's intentionally vague. I'm far from being an expert on information theory, yet even I can tell that to ask such a question one must first provide a definition of information to work on. Somehow I get the feeling that what Creationists actually have in mind is a particular understanding - or, rather, misunderstanding - of information that might favour their own agenda if they manage to phrase the question with enough ambiguity. But as far as reality goes, genetic information "generates itself." RNA and Protein splicing, Frame-shit mutations, deletions, duplications, insertions, etc., all these occurrences result in mutations and, as a consequence, in genetic information which is slightly different from the original one. The resulting genetic code, whether Creationists like it or not, is new information generated via imperfect natural mechanisms. The usual rebuke made by Creationists to this is that such mechanisms either simply act on existing information modifying it or they simply give way to detrimental or, at best, neutral mutations. All of a sudden they demand instances of such mechanisms giving rise not just to mutations, but to beneficial mutations - which was obviously their hidden agenda right from the start - regardless of the fact that benefit is in no way a prerogative of genetic mutations and of the resulting new information, since benefit is always relative to the environment. To put it in the terms of Information Theory, mutations create Shannon Information content in the form of new nucleotide chains, whereas selection will increase the specificity of the new information once the content is transformed into active protein with a function, thereby crushing all Creationist hopes of finding their safety in Information Theory. One could then provide examples of beneficial mutations, such as the evolution of photoreceptors in mammals (for further information see Michael H. Rowe, Trichromatic Color Vision in Primates, News in Physiological Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 3, 93-98, June 2002, relevant section available with full text here.), but not even that could possibly shake the Creationists' conviction that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has to be wrong because their deity cannot possibly be.
4 comments:
Hey there Fabio.
We don’t need to define terms if we already know what they mean. Detailed instructions on precisely what kind of orderly end product (in this case, a particular animal body) will result does genuinely qualify as a kind of information. And we normally expect to find information only in a mind (or some sort of expression of said mind like, say, the printed words of a book).
When you say that information produces itself, you are apparently assuming that there is already information (in a different form) to begin with. This information, you go on to say, is changed through mutation. The problem is that mutation can only change information not produce the original information ex nihilo. This would seem to require a mind. Your entire criticism in faq 2 seems to ignore the ultimate origin of the genetic information. Whether or not there are beneficial mutations (relative to environment and/or some more advanced animal) is besides the point. Now, the information is new in some sense but it still requires a mind if the original information requires a mind.
Finally, I see no problem in affirming both the truth of Christianity and Neo-Darwinism. If your belief in Neo-Darwinism contributes to your belief in atheism, then that is, I would say, a major mistake on your part.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Mutations do not simply modify pre-existing information, they can radically change the genetic layout of an organism, by all means producing new information content. And all this without a supervising intelligence.
As for the ultimate origin of the genetic information, you're once more claiming the gap of abiogenesis for yourself and for your deity.
Fabio, you are presuming there is no divine supervenience of the modification of the already existing information. This says nothing as to where the original information came from. I grant that it may perhaps be possible for new information to arise by way of changing old information. But in that case, we need to presume, first, that there is information; and secondly, that there is some process of information mutation. Where did this process of mutation come from? Where did this original (or unmutated)information come from? So it seems we have two and only two possible sources of genetic information.
1. Mutation of pre-existing genetic information.
2. A mind.
The mind could only be that of a God, it seems to me.
To be clear, I am not saying that we don't know how life originated so God must have done it. Rather, I am saying that when the first life arose, the genetic information in that life, is a kind of information. And it is very difficult to imagine information (that is, primitive or unchanged information) arising outside of a mind. Rocks cannot do predicate calculus.
Information is not information until it is processed, eg. when a DNA string is read and transformed into active proteins. Rocks are not made of organic, self-replicating molecules, whereas life forms are. Self-replicating molecules, polymers, were actually the first forms of life on the planet and the originators of the genetic information you seem to be so deeply obsessed about. Then came RNA and then the double strand of DNA. The first agglomerations of molecules were random and probably at first were self-sustaining, not coding for any complex protein until they evolved a more complex structure with a membrane. Is all this extremely unlikely? Sure, no one denies it. Is its being unlikely proof that it did not happen? Far from it. You keep on attaching extra meaning to the word "information" in a way that makes it impossible for you to consider that it might have originated spontaneously in favourable conditions and without a mind behind it. That, however, is entirely your problem.
Post a Comment