: : : My, isn’t this exciting?

: : : I was unsure about the 2nd law being applied to information systems, and it turns out, you were right. My mistake. So, I took time from my busy schedule (just cuz’ your so darn fun to argue with) to look this up in Encarta (I also glanced over Ton’s post - thanx for the info!!), to get a more detailed analysis.

: : : "The term entropy has been borrowed from thermodynamics to denote the average information content of these messages. Entropy can be understood intuitively as the amount of ‘disorder’ in a system. In information theory the entropy of a message equals its average information content. If, in a set of messages, the probabilities are equal, the formula for the total entropy can be given as H = log2N, in which N is the number of possible messages in the set." Encarta : : : : : : Okay, this is an apparent violation to the 2nd law because information seems to need constant input to increase in order for the information to increase. You cited this as an example as to why evolution is an impossibility.

: : : BUT this assumes that evolution is random (ie. each combination has an equal chance of forming, which simply isn’t true in evolution)...

: : : "ENCODING & REDUNDANCY:If messages are transmitted consisting of random combinations of the 26 letters of the English alphabet, the space, and five punctuation marks, and if it is assumed that the probability of each message is the same, the entropy H = log232 = 5. This means that five bits are needed to encode each character, or message: 00000, 00001, 00010 … 11111. Efficient transmission and storage of information require the reduction of the number of bits used for encoding. This is possible when processing English texts because letters are far from being completely random." Encarta

: : : Evolution, as I previously outlined is not random, few things in nature are. It occurs through natural selection, where individuals with the most suited characteristics will survive to procreate, thus passing their genes to their offspring. Not random.

: : : Logical entropy seems to rely on randomness (each combination has the same probability of forming), in order for the given equation to work.

: : : "The probability is extremely high, for example, that the letter following the sequence of letters INFORMATIO is an ‘n.’ It can be shown that the entropy of ordinary written English is about one bit per letter. This indicates that the English language (like every other language) has a large amount of redundancy incorporated in it, which is called natural redundancy." Encarta

: : : So I’m asserting that this natural redundancy is also present in evolution, because certain patterns will be selected by natural means. Even more so in organic molecules.

: : : The theory of abiogenesis, also proposes a mechanism that isn’t random (previous post), but follows predicted patterns from biochemistry. : : : If you’ve ever studied organic chemistry, you’ll find that given a set of conditions necessary for a reaction to occur, you will find regioselectivity. This is the tendancy for only one type of product to be formed out of a variety of combinations or isomers. If the conditions were different, an entirely different molecule is formed. A very simple example is if I placed equal amounts of hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen in an air tight room, the products that result would not be randomly formed. Carbon might have a greater tendancy to react with oxygen, nitrogen with hydrogen, etc.

: : : Thus, a molecule may form that seems to be organized all by it self, when in reality, the atoms form merely because of the conditions present due to physical laws (attraction between atoms and such). So given the precise conditions, it is conceivable how abiogenesis could occur. Remember, early organism were likely very different from those we see today, and much simpler. : : : You might say that such an occurance has very minute possibility, but when one considers the vast quantity of all the organic molecules on the earth, life has a good chance of forming.

: : : Furthermore, if you consider DNA to be information, you might as well consider organic molecules, atoms, and quarks to be information as well. So by your definition, information has probably always existed. So I guess in that sense information hasn’t really "sprung" out of no where, but is able to organize when it follows physical laws.

: : : Finally, allow me to end with a question. You seem to be an individual who prizes himself in scientific knowledge. The story of genesis, if taken literally, violates many physical laws, including the second law of thermodynamics, that you’ve ascribed to be infallible. Why is God outside these laws?

: : : P.S. I can't say it enough, evolution is separate from abiogenesis. It's possible that if we found out that God himself came down from his porcelain throne to create the 1st forms of life and then left things to go on their merry way, evolution would still be the mechanism used to explain how single celled life could have evolved into us. It is possible that abiogenesis be wrong, while evolution is simultaneously correct.

: : bzrd here: The probability that the letter "n" will occur after "informatio" is one in twenty-six. The probability that you would draw the sequence of letters that produce "information" is about the same as hitting the New York lottery in consecutive weeks. Ofcourse, any combination of letters is the same as the other, unless the combination in question, is part of an information system. In order for information to exist, there must be a mechanism whereby the information is interpreted and transmitted; letters produce words which transmit abstract thoughts in the human brain. Remove the brain from the process and you have no information system. My favorite CD has iron atoms impregnated on it that allows the laser in my CD player to produce music; without the laser technology, there would be no music. Protein synthesis is an information system; the code for the protein is encoded in the DNA molecule, without the ribosome there would be no protein. The information neccessary to construct the ribosome is encoded in the DNA molecule; I believe this is known as the chicken and the egg dilemma. To think there are some hapless souls who spend a significant portion of their lives trying to figure out how something happened that almost certainly never happened......but I digress....Why is God outside these laws? The answer to that lies in the question, my friend. If God were subject to the laws of nature then He could not have created the universe. If He was part of the universe and He Created the universe, He would have, in effect, Created Himself. Even Hawking will tell you that what [who?] ever created the universe had to come from outside of it. Without matter there is no universe, without energy there is no matter [E=mc2], it takes an immense amount of energy to produce a minute amount of matter [thanks to the speed of light]. Who [what] did it? There is no salvation in super-strings.........

Apollos: I'm sure all this discussion of God is important to you, but, what I'm afraid of is that you all could be wrong and I remember reading from a very knowledgeable author, it read "God has hidden his secrets from the wise and prudent and revealed it to babies." What if the thing we seek for is deliberately hid from our eyes? And what if everything we say about the universe is futile? Think about a moth that lives only a few weeks, or days. What if he were to land on a tree and begin theorizing about the tree and telling how it evolved? Are we the same way in theorizing about the universe? Our time here on this earth is about 80 years and what is that compared to the billions of years it has been in existence? How can we make those calls about how the universe came into existence and about how the earth came into existence? We don't live long enough to do that. If we spend our whole lives in this research and someone comes after us that is not as opened minded and serious minded about the subject we are studying, will it not be shaded and unclear? I don't believe he could ever learn enough in those 80 years to explain how it "all" happened. I hear a lot of theories, and each feel that they are right, but I have read where "if the blind lead the blind they both will fall into a ditch". I know we learn wisdom from our forefathers, but what would the ancients say to our modern day discoveries? Are we better than they are? I keep thinking about the pyramids, the practices of the ancient times that surprise us today. We called those people unlearned but they accomplished many things which involved the solar system and science that we cannot explain. This has been a deep concern of mine for quite some time. Shouldn't we rather observe knowledge that is older and more seasoned like say 3 to 4000 years old? Look at the directions they were going and not make the mistake of thinking we are smarter than they are, but, rather consider their teachings and observances. I have also read a warning in the ancient books of wisdom "do not remove the old landmarks". :-}

• Hey Apollos - tenacious - November 30, 1999 - 21:49 UTC