Egnor and Biological Information, Take 2
I asked Darwinists to define biological information, because Darwin's theory hinges on it. Darwin asserted that all natural functional biological complexity (information) arose by non-teleological variation and natural selection. ID theory asserts that some natural functional biological complexity (information) arose by teleological variation and natural selection. By 'teleological' I mean a process that is most reasonably understood as the result of intelligent agency, analogous to human intelligent agency, with which we have ample experience. But as the author there points out, when he asked his question he was given examples of new traits developed through the well understood process of gene duplication and diversification, a process that results in new traits in a population. And he said that wasn't what he was looking for. So the author pressed on and asked the question in a different way:
Perhaps an easier question is, if a process did increase (or decrease) biological information in the way that you ask, how would we know? What would we have to measure? And predictably, Egnor dodged it yet again:
No one knows how to measure biological information in a meaningful way. The current ways of measuring information (Shannon, KC, etc) are relevant to sending signals, and are not of much help in biology. all of this is utter nonsense. The only thing that his question could possibly mean - the only way it could possibly be answered - is by showing specific examples of evolutionary processes resulting in the development of a new trait. After all, that is what the "biological information" in the genome actually does. But that is a trivially easy question to answer because we observe the development of new genes coding for new traits in genomes, both in the lab and the wild, virtually every day. What else could "biologically meaningful information" mean than that? If you're asking for examples of new biologically meaningful information, then what can that possibly mean other than new genes producing new traits in a population of organisms? It simply can't mean anything else. But they can't just say that because they know full well that there are limitless examples of that throughout the scientific literature. That's why they refuse to define "biologically meaningful information", and why they have to play these word games and keep it as vague as possible so that it can never be answered to their satisfaction. It's a very similar game to the one that has long been played by creationists regarding transitional fossils. They make the bold claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, but if you ask them what a transitional form might look like if you did find one - demand that they give some criteria for defining a transitional form that, if met, they would accept as being one - you will never, ever, ever get a straight answer. And that's for the same reason you will never get a straight answer on this, because any specific answer they give is easily met - and they know it. So the definitions are like the pea under the shell as they move around the table. Yet another game of three card monty with the creationists.
Egnor and Biological Information, Take 2 | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
Egnor and Biological Information, Take 2 | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
|
||||||||||||
|