The Law Of Information: Accidental or Intentional

Since  science has progressed to a point where we know much more about the specified complexities of life than we did over the past 30 years this quote holds more water than ever…“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” A conclusion of the 7th International Conference on the Origins of Life, Mainz, July 1983.
How did atoms create new information in which other things could be built? Information is vital, as I stated many times without specified information, life doesn’t exist. Similar to that of software of a computer, in order for the machine to work, the software must be specified in a particular area to perform certain tasks. If one specifies how to cook a chicken in the computer language, this certainly one not make the computer function even though it’s specified information.

In September 18, 1999, in New Scientist it said, “Of course there is a “code” in living organisms, but that doesn’t mean that such “code” is intentional, that is, the project of a God. The information “is simply there” in the evolutionist’s mind. It has “maked” itself.” This statement holds true for many evolutionists today!

Doesn’t sound like a logical stance based on the evidence. The evolutionist replies, “Well the information is simply there” which doesn’t hold any proof that it’s origin is accidental. The claim begs the question, how does an evolutionist know it’s not intentional? It’s been observe that codes and information have been created by intelligence. The very things we use like our cars, cell phones, microwaves, LCD TV, were all created with information coming from intelligent sources. On the other hand, we haven’t observed any accidental sources which had created specified information of something totally new, not something which was already there, and then making it functional.

Mutations are very important in the story of evolution but they need to prove much more than creating novel proteins or simply duplicate existing base pair sequences or reduce the specificity of the active site of an enzyme (so that, in spite of being less able to do its job, can digest a related substrate).

This particular evolutionist invented the idea of endosymbiosis to account for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts in eukaryotic cells, she said in her book,  Acquiring genomes. A theory of the origins of species, Basic Books, New York, 2002….”Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues.” (p. 11) and “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.” (p. 29) This reminds my of a recent saying, there is no new mutation that eases the causes of cancer nor does mutations cure cancer.


3 thoughts on “The Law Of Information: Accidental or Intentional

  1. ““There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” A conclusion of the 7th International Conference on the Origins of Life, Mainz, July 1983

    This is essentially a restatement of the second law of thermodynamics: “Heat will not of itself flow from a cooler body to a hotter boddy.”

    But heat can be made to flow to a hotter body—otherwise you couldn’t keep ypur beer cool in the summer.

    And information can be made to orginate in matter equally simply by the flow of energy through an open system. This is how a hurricane converts a chaotic mass of air into an organized swirling cyclone full of information.

    The key is that, as creationists are wont, you omitted the relevant context.

    You are also still confusing apologetics with science, by qyuoting authority for the truth of a matter. Sorry.

  2. How are you defining “information” here, Michael? That is a very tricky thing, and many people define it in different ways. For example, I would argue that if you duplicate a gene, you have not changed the information. But if that duplicate mutates, you have increased it.

    Why? Think of this: You have a page full of the letter “A”. You have a page full of English text. You have a page full of random letters. The most information is contained in the page of random letters because it cannot be compressed, as opposed to the first one could simply be compressed by saying you have, e.g., 500xA. So while duplicating a gene doesn’t necessarily increase the information, once that gene changes into something else, you have something completely new that can do something different, and you have increased the information.

  3. Here’s a simple example, astroturf.

    Consider the DNA sequence ATATATATATATATATATAT. We can represent its information as ‘ten repetitions ao AT’ or {10xAT}.

    Now an intelligent cosmic ray redesigns one of the letters, so the sequence becomes ATATATATATTTATATATAT, with information {5xAT+2xT+4xAT}. More than twice as much information.

    So much for conservation of information.

    ==Soc Pup.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s