I guess @Otangellodoesn’t know … The second law of thermodynamics (a law of physics) creates information and structure from dissipation of energy, like how a disorganized weather system comes together to form a tornado or hurricane. These organized structures exist to help energy dissipate faster, increasing overall entropy. Life is also an organized structure that helps energy dissipate faster.
As far as biology and genetic codes go, information is an abstract representation of chemistry, and it’s no big mystery that chemical reaction occurs, usually driven by energy in the environment (hello again Entropy!). @otangello is bluffing that no one can see through his walls of text to see that his arguments are completely empty.
If @Otangelo were right, then evolution would be a dead science with nothing going for it, instead of the thriving field of science it is, giving us new discoveries and new applications every day.
So @Otangelo , answer me this: If the science of evolution is so very wrong, then why does it work so damn well?
Does a hydrograph based on natural, stocastic rainfall contain information? Hydrologists, engineers, farmers and river rafters use this information every day.
Do weather stations provide information on rainfall temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction? Is this useful information for meteorologists, sailors, pilots and picnic planners?
Does the differential spectra of two binary stars contain information that allows astronomers to calculate the orbital velocity and relative mass of the stars?
Looks like physics is sending us messages every day, even if we can’t understand the obvious.
Life in any form is a very serious enigma and conundrum. It does something, whatever the biochemical pathway, machinery, enzymes etc. are involved, that should not and honestly could not ever “get off the ground”. It SPONTANEOUSLY recruits Gibbs free energy from its environment so as to reduce its own entropy. That is tantamount to a rock continuously recruiting the wand to roll it up the hill, or a rusty nail “figuring out” how to spontaneously rust and add layers of galvanizing zinc on itself to fight corrosion. Unintelligent simple chemicals can’t self-organize into instructions for building solar farms (photosystems 1 and 2), hydroelectric dams (ATP synthase), propulsion (motor proteins) , self repair (p53 tumor suppressor proteins) or self-destruct (caspases) in the event that these instructions become too damaged by the way the universe USUALLY operates. Abiogenesis is not an issue that scientists simply need more time to figure out but a fundamental problem with materialism
AND here we see the pivot from “there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing”, to “Oh, THAT law of physics.” Shortly followed by a series of off-topic example irrelevant to biology.
A dissipative structure is a dissipative system that has a dynamical regime that is in some sense in a reproducible steady state. This reproducible steady state may be reached by natural evolution of the system, by artifice, or by a combination of these two.
Such structures CAN “get of the ground”, it’s just needs the right circumstances and a large energy gradient. We don’t know all the circumstances necessary for life to start yet, but we have plausible theories to pursue. Compare this to ID, which has no theory of Design or Designer, answers no useful scientific questions, has no useful application, and has never produced a positive result. Which brings me back to this question, to which I would very much appreciate your answer:
The hydrograph may be informative. But there isn’t any such thing as “information” for it to contain. We talk about it as if it contains information, because we find that a useful way to talk about being informed. That’s why information is an abstraction, rather than a real thing.
Information isn’t a “thing” but it does describe a property of the hydrologic cycle. A hydrograph is a snapshot of the “flow” of information from upstream to downstream - a description of a property on nature. @Otangello is not referring to any formal definition of “information” (ie: Shannon Information) but a vague idea representing the “meaning” of a message, which has absolutely nothing to do with information theory. This allows Otangello to make all sorts of important sounding claims, but they are entirely empty.
In terms of Information Theory there is no difficulty with information being created from random physical processes - entropy demands this. Dissipative structures allow certain information to remain (mostly) undisturbed by entropy, at the cost of speeding the overall dissipation of energy.
“Physicist Max Tegmark has shown that the universe contains almost no information or in other words has no structure. The information we humans perceive comes from our subjective viewpoint. William Dembski’s supposed Law of Conservation of Information has been shown to be deeply flawed. A good book on this is called Why Intelligent Design Fails. However this “law” was disproved by showing that the quantitative definition of information used by Dembski is equivalent to negative entropy. Entropy is not a conserved quantity like energy. Entropy in an open system can either increase or decrease. Living organisms on Earth are open systems.”
Both, the water-energy gradient, and the energy-generating water turbine are necessary to produce energy for human use. Analogously, a proton- gradient, and ATP synthase motor proteins are necessary to generate ATP, the energy currency in the cell. Both are irreducibly complex systems. If one is missing, no deal. Both also require specified complex information, assembly instructions, to make the energy-generating plants. Instantiating both, specified, and irreducible complexity always requires a mind that has specific purposes, foresight, and goals. Energy supply is one of 3 core-essential features of life: energy, information, and the basic building blocks. ATP synthase and a proton gradient exist in all life forms, and had to emerge prior to when life started. So it cannot be invoked evolution to explain its origins. It is either intelligence, or random, unguided stochastic lucky events.
1. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP). It consists of two very different subunits that have to be externally and stably tethered together, just the right distance apart. The two major subunits (F0 & F1) are connected together by an external tether, and just the right distance apart. This tether doesn’t have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it ATP synthase would not be able to perform its function. One of the subunits has to be embedded in the cell membrane so that an energy gradient can be formed. And the other has to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away. 2. This is an irreducibly complex system, where a minimal number of at least five functional parts must work together in an interlocked way, in a joint venture to bear function. Individually, the subunits have no function whatsoever ( Not even in different setups). ATP synthase cannot be the product of evolution, because it had to be fully operational and functional to start life ( The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution). No life form without ATP synthase is known. 3. We know by experience that complex machines made of various interlocked subparts with specific functions are always created by intelligent minds. Therefore, ATP synthas is definitely evidence of a powerful intelligent creator, who knew how to create power-generating turbines.
Come on Bill, think this through. Functional Information applies to biological functions, not solar farms and turbine generators. 'gello is making stuff up as he goes along, a trollish tactic which has gotten him kicked out of dozens of FB groups that I know of, and probably a lot more that I don’t. Over the course of several years of FB activity, in every instance where someone has actually followed thru on one of his walls-of-text, it has turned out to be a blatant misinterpretation of the facts. Otangello doesn’t care, he just responds with more misrepresentations.
Sorry, did I rant?
If you don’t believe me, take a deep dive into one of 'gello’s screeds, find the references, and see if what I am writing here is true.
@Otangello, I rejected your latest wall of text, that’s no sort of honest communication, and as I mentioned above, is bad behavior. If you want to complain that I am not moderating you fairly, that would be correct. I am drawing on my past experience with you in an effort to get you to change that behavior. I don’t expect to succeed, but that is my obligation. I am not obligated to put up with your usual tactics.
For anyone infatuated with Otangelos walls of text: It’s all wrong. No, you will not find a person with the level of obsession required to go through and debunk all of it. But rest assured, it’s all equally as completely and utterly wrong as the sentence i just debunked. I’m out again.
This is Otangelo’s usual tactic, for which he is infamous on FB. In the spirit of PS I am giving him a chance to be otherwise. Please flag any wall-of-text posts that make it thru moderation.
