The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a 
process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the 
formation of ice crystals.  While the crystals appear to have more information, 
the crystal formation itself is a random application of chemical bonding laws 
and contains no more information than another crystal formation.  To illustrate 
my point, ask yourself this: "Does one crystal, like a snow flake, tell you 
more information about its process of formation, that you can not get from 
another snow flake?"  In the end, the crystals itself  are all products 
randomly created.

There is a concept called "Specified Complexity" wherein one has a mathematical 
criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by an Intelligence 
or something that is created by Random chance and physical laws.  For example, 
when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the beach sand, and it is 
shaped like an "I".  You can not immediately say that this scribbling was 
written by a man.  That scribbling has no "specified complexity".  The 
information is not complex and specified enough.  However, when you see "I love 
Lucy" written on the beach sand, you can immediately say that that writting is 
from an intelligent being.  Why?  because the complexity is huge, the chance is 
low and the information of the writting is specified - that is, it contains 
knowledge from a known source, the human language.  Hence, using the criteria 
of specified complexity, one can say that "I love Lucy" is specified complex 
while the letter "I" while it contains information, is complex but not 
specified complex.  Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge 
whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from random 
processes.

Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is 
specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is was 
designed by an Intelligence.


But once again, I am getting ahead of myself.  We will discuss specified 
complexity in a later post.


Jojo



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions


  Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the 
information content of a system is too broad.  The formation of a crystal from 
a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of 
the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final 
crystal structure.  Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release 
of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random.

  With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system 
boundaries become critical.

  Dave
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jojo Jaro <[email protected]>
  To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
  Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions


Yes,  That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited 
and fallacious idea.    Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell 
structures, RNA and others.

Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that 
slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA.  Why, because 
random mutation can not explain the existence of "Information" within our 
DNA.  There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that 
increases the Information Content of a system.  Random processes results in 
entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  I will discuss DNA information in a 
future post.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Blanton" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions


> Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over
> simplification of genetics:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml
>
> T
>
> 

Reply via email to