Too unspecific to comment.DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:37 amI'm still trying to figure out precisely where we agree and disagree on your computer exampleNils wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:21 amNot generally, only their position on creation of new information, specifically during unguided parts of the evolution, namely that it's impossible.DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:55 amMy understanding is that your statement
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information. I think this is wrong and will try to show why."
Was an attempt to refute the position ID proponents such as Meyer and Behe.
Do we agree on the following statement that you posted earlier?
If you say that the execution of a program and the output from the program is dependent on the programmer even after the program is finished and the programmer has moved away then there is no program that is independent of the programmer, by definition.
Is there anything in the following statement that you disagree with?
- It is impossible for a computer to create new information without a program
- It is impossible for a computer program to exist without an intelligent programmer.
==> It is impossible for a computer to create new information without an intelligent programmer
- - - -
There are so many things that have to be clarified. Apparently you don't understand what I'm discussing. Perhaps a way to explain is if you look at Meyer in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg. This video is nicely structured in smaller sections, each about two minutes. The sections 2:48 Can evolutionary mechanisms explain the DNA code and 4:29 Why do random mutations tend to degrade the genome, is about the problem we discussed in the thread Atheist question, namely the big Solution Space and how evolution works in it. Let's call this the SS problem.
In the section at 6:10 If evolution can't explain the origin of genetic information, he discusses another problem. This is the problem I discuss in this thread and is about who or what can create information. This is a different problem than the SS problem above. Let's call it the Info problem.
Meyer says here:
6:32 "We know from our experience that information always arrives from an intelligence source." and
6:52 "Whenever we see information and we trace it back to a source it always comes to a mind not an undirected material process".
I think that these claims are better to understand the problem. In the OP I talked about what is "needed" to create information and that was a wording that probably caused your misunderstanding of the problem. I didn't think of your interpretation of my wording.
My labyrinth solving program example (see the OP) is meant to show that the two statements of Meyer above are false. The information I talk about is the message LRRL. This information is derived from the input of the labyrinth data. The software programmer had no idea of how the specific labyrinth would look so the information can't possibly come from the programmer (via the code). You might say that the information is within the data about the labyrinth that is fed into the computer but that data could have been created by another program that used a random generator as input. (And the programmer of that program would have no idea of the information LRRL).
So the question is: If the computer program didn't create the info LRRL who or what did that instead?
My answer is that the information "LRRL" arrived from the labyrinth program and that this program is the source of the information, a program that is an undirected material process. So Meyer's claims are false. In the OP i mentioned some other reasons why. Using programs to get knowledge is an established method.
As I said above, this is not a response to the Info problem. It is a response to the SS problem.
Please comment my #36. There I explain that there are two cases. In both cases it is possible to apply the worlds "necessary" or "dependent on" but in the case I talk about the world "interfere" is more suitable.That is a potentially legitimate position...In the OP i defined the problem thus:
"What is assumed is that intelligence is needed to create new information and hence that a natural process of mutations and selections (evolution) can’t produce new information."
The person arguing for this claim could reason like you saying: God created the universe and made the process of Darwinian evolution possible so any information that is created by that process is dependent on God so the process itself can't create any independent information.
... if Darwinistic processes can be demonstrated to be capable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.
I don't happen to hold that position, for reasons that we have already discussed in another thread.
I agree with that 'stronger' claim based on the following.They don't argue for the self evident claim that if God created the universe everything is in some way dependent on God. They make a stronger claim that the process itself, without any reference to who or what created it, can't create information.. I know that Philip and others argues something like this self evident proof but the author of the article and the Discovery Institute claim something stronger. They claim that "intelligence is needed to create new information" and what they intend is that some intelligence actively interferes with the biological process.
Darwinian Evolution presumes "random" mutation.
We have empirical data regarding the capability of "random mutation", and as we have discussed elsewhere the observed capability of random mutation is inconsistent with what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today (by astronomical orders of magnitude).
Therefore if we assume mutations have occurred that are beyond the empirically observed capability of "random" mutation, then that is evidence (at least to me) that some intelligence has potentially "interfered' in the mutation process to generate new information.
Some might call that a 'creative' act.
That's my .02.
But to get back to the OP, I am unaware of any situation where new information has been created that is not ultimately dependent on intelligence of some sort.
And I think that is the key point here.