Trying to grasp 'Information'

The most recent argument against evolution involves 'information', but they [ID proponents] never seem to explain it in a way that makes any sense.  So I have been searching for an analogy that works, but I keep coming up blank.  Not sure if I am going to reach a conclusion, but a couple of things did strike me.  Let's start with Denyse O'Leary's recent definition of Evolution:

"The mere process of eliminating unfit examples of a type in a given environment builds up information over time, resulting in huge new layers of complexity."

So, according to Denyse - Evolution is a build up of complexity.  That really doesn't ring true for me.  I don't see anything that mandates increases in complexity.  What can be, and has been documented, is that as species evolve, genetic information (genome) changes.  Whether those changes increase, decrease, or don't change the amount of genetic information seems more a matter of measurement than a matter of importance.  There is my first problem, by what standard are they measuring changes in genetic information?  I can't seem to find anything specific on such a measurement.

They offer opinion, calling 'information' complex, but what does that really mean?  Just like 'information, how do you measure complexity?  That's my second problem.  Complexity, recently sort of defined by Wild Bill Dembski, and repeated ad nauseum by little casey luskin, is this:

"something is complex if it is unlikely to occur by chance" (Wikipedia: Specified Complexity)

Now when I went looking for a definition of 'Complexity', I couldn't find a real definition, all I really found was that complexity is a characterization and often an opinion.  For example something might be complex to me may not be complex for someone else.  The most common dictionary definition is:

"the quality or state of not being simple, the quality or state of being complex, a part of something that is complicated or hard to understand" (Merriam-Webster: Complexity)

Of course you can't stop there, you then have to define 'complex':

"a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts" (Merriam-Webster: Complex)

The problem with 'characteristic' definitions like this is they tend to run you in circles, Complexity leads you to Complex which leads you to Complicated.  Complicated is defined in a way that leads back to Complexity:

"hard to understand, explain, or deal with : having many parts or steps" (Merriam-Webster: Complicated)

I am sure something that doesn't surprise anyone, is that Complexity is defined by the rest of the world considerably different than Dembski's definition.  Just because something is complex, as in a whole made up of interrelated parts and maybe hard to understand, does not mean it is unlikely to occur through a natural process!  The formation of an object that may be defined as complex is not determined by its eventual level of complexity.  That's the opinion part of a characteristic definition.  Dembski, luskin, and the rest of the DI claim that complexity is a measure of unlikelihood, but by what measure?  Is a mountain complex?  Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.  To someone looking at one at a distance and the answer might be 'no', but ask a mountain climber or a geologist and you will get a very different answer.  Even Biblical Literalists like kennie ham agree the Grand Canyon formed by a natural process, he just thinks it happened due to an imaginary flood very quickly rather than millions of years of much smaller changes.  See what I mean by a characterization and opinion?

You might have noticed that I am not using Dembski's term 'Chance'.  I don't like that term mainly because it bring to mind something much more random.  Evolution isn't random, it's more unpredictable, which is not the same thing as being random.  But I've posted about that many times.  Although Darwin used the term 'Random Mutation', when you look at mutations within the context of evolution, any randomness is a very small piece.  Mutations themselves aren't particularly random, often they can be traced back to the genes that changed and resulted in the mutation and unless those genes were present, that specific mutation would not have occurred.  If random mutation was completely random, then anything could happen, regardless of the involved genes.  That isn't the case, unpredictable more than random.

I understand why Dembski uses 'chance', because he wants people to think Evolution is completely random and based on the luck of the draw, so to speak.  It's how he sells his argument of the impossibility of evolution. 

But, back to the discussion at hand, the reality is there is nothing anyone has published says complexities in nature cannot occur through a natural process.  They [ID proponents] feel that complexity is unlikely to occur, but that's an unsupported opinion, not based on facts.  Yes, they can call up examples of complex things that occur rarely, but by the same token there are a great many things considered complex that happen often through natural means.  What I think happened here is Dembski made up his own definition of 'complexity' and then started using it as if the world would automatically buy into it.  Is a tree complex?  And yet they grow everywhere and plant evolution is well supported.

While I was in the middle of my mental meanderings, little casey luskin, you know the 'lawyer' tasked with handing out press releases during the Dover Trial.  Well it seems he took a stab at the information argument and he really just muddied up the waters more than provided any clarification.  Here is a link to his post: "A Taxonomy of Information".  The main reason I read it is he started something potentially intriguing . . . and to be honest I usually don't make it past a few lines of most of casey's posts.  I've commented on him many times, but much less often than he posts himself.  But this time he said:

"What are some common definitions of information, and which definition is most useful for making the design inference?"

As you can imagine, I was hoping that the DI would actually pin down the definition of information that might bring some sense to their whole information argument. But, they didn't.  All little casey really did was pile on a bunch of nonsense and then use such nonsense in an effort to justify their shared religious belief.  They jump from a poor series of 'information' explanations right into their favorite topic 'Complex Specified Information' without making any connection.  From there little case' repeats stuff from Dembski on 'complexity' and he's off and running down a winding path that doesn't lead to anything resembling a conclusion.  At one point he says:

"It's important to understand that the idea of complex and specified information is NOT an invention of ID proponents."

Which isn't totally true.  Yes, the term did not originate with the DI, but Dembski's use of the term is certainly did!  To quote Wikipedia again:

" . . .whereas Orgel used the term [specified complexity] for biological features which are considered in science to have arisen through a process of evolution, Dembski says that it describes features which cannot form through "undirected" evolution—and concludes that it allows one to infer intelligent design. While Orgel employed the concept in a qualitative way, Dembski's use is intended to be quantitative." (Wikipedia: Specified Complexity)

OK, you can read Casey's little diatribe on your own time.  I think I've given him more than enough attention here.  Let's go back to the 'information' argument and try and sum up where my thinking has been going.  First let's add in the basic definition of Intelligent Design:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

The phrase that sticks with me is "best explained".  What they seem to be saying is their explanation is best because the genome is complex and complexity can only come from intelligence and not natural processes.  The only point of agreement is that the genome is complex, that is it has a great many pieces and parts.  But the fact of complexity in no way requires an intelligence.  Inventing things like specified complexity to 'explain' things fails if they cannot back it up with reality instead of wishful thinking.  The whole 'information argument' is rapidly turning into a re-statement of the old 'odds argument'.

You might remember the odds argument.  It was personified when Fred Hoyle made an analogy comparing Evolution to a tornado through a junk yard building a 747.  It was further compounded with some folks claiming to have calculated the odds of the human genome being in existence.  Yet the odds argument doesn't work.  It's like the lottery.  Before you buy a ticket, you can calculate the odds of winning because you know the parameters you are operating within.  Do we know the parameters for the formation of life?  No, and any claims to the contrary are selling one version of snake oil or another.

Let me repeat my favorite analogy about the odds argument.  Take a plain deck of playing cards and shuffle them up.  Deal them out face-up so you can see them all.  Do you see the order they are in?  What are the odds of them being in that order? 52! (52 factorial).  Pretty damn astronomical.  Now the question is did you beat the odds?  Be honest!

The answer, of course, is no.  Unless you predicted that exact order before you started dealing them out, you haven't beaten the odds at all.  Now, what are the odds of those cards being in some order?  Right, 100%.  Without the prediction, the odds are meaningless. 

Let's try one more analogy, start with the number 1 and add 1, you get 2, then add another 1, and you get 3 . . . adding one to a number is a very simple process.  Is there a limit?  Of course not.  We have frequently stated that numbers simply keep going, toward a fairly esoteric idea called 'infinity'.  But that number will pretty quickly reach a level where it is literally incomprehensible to us human beings.  Oh, in the abstract, we can deal with such large numbers by changing the way we express them in various ways to bring them down to a comprehensible level, but something like 1.0 x 10¹⁰⁰ is given the name 'googol', another impossibly large number, a googolplex is equivalent to 1.0 x 10^googol.  The estimate of counting up to a googol would take an estimated 5 x 10⁹⁰ centuries (at 2 numbers per second).  Can you even imagine how long it would take to count up to a googolplex? Based on that, wouldn't such a number be 'hard to understand'?  So it meets one of the common definitions for 'complex'. 

So here we have something created through a simple process that eventually reaches a point where it is barely comprehensible without some esoteric methods of reference, like scientific notation or categorizing with a cute name. I know this isn't a complete analogy, but then what analogy completely represents anything anyway?  But look at how a simple process can eventually add up to levels of complexity that require us to take significant steps to be able to comprehend.  Even then, do most folks really understand numbers that large?

To use this analogy on Intelligent Design, it seems that we start with 1, and add 1, then add another 1 . . . and we reach a point of comprehensibility where we cannot add another number.  To make the jump to a larger number some external factor (intelligence . . . or to be honest, a Deity) must be added because of our inability to comprehend such complex things.  And yet for this to be true, there has to be some barrier that cannot be breached.  Have ID proponents offered up anything resembling a barrier?  Not yet and not for a lack of trying. 

Life evolved and continues to evolve without any evidence of the actions of a capricious deity.  The information argument doesn't really seem to mean much of anything.

Denyse requires intelligence to explain Mick Jagger

Denyse is at it again.  Doesn't her garden get a little crowded with straw-men?  In her latest post she takes on sex, as in "Can Sex Explain Evolution?".  That's pretty silly because by itself, the answer is no, but it's part of a much larger process that certainly does have a part in explaining evolution, and rather well.

She first redefines evolution again:

"The mere process of eliminating unfit examples of a type in a given environment builds up information over time, resulting in huge new layers of complexity."

I would rather not go over it again, can we just say that I think Denyse skipped 6th grade science class and leave it at that.

Here is where I think Denyse loses it.

"But if no one can say what is fit or unfit according to natural selection, because nature has no direction, why must we pay attention to claims about natural selection? "

She seems to assume there has to be something directing traffic, and assumes it must be goal-oriented for some reason because it has to decide fitness.  She can't except the reality of Natural Selection, so she tries to use Sexual Selection to create her strawman of needing an intelligence.  Then when she shows there is no intelligence, she dismisses it as impossible.  The economist who described 'survival of the fittest' was not describing evolution, and even though biologists don't use that term, at least not without a lengthy explanation, Denyse can't seem to grasp that evolution does not equal survival of the fittest in it's barest form.  Come on Denyse, you should be more familiar with your subject by now, shouldn't you?

But what does the selecting?  As it has been explained over and over again, the environment an organism exists within.   It's not that hard to understand, well that is if you actually want to understand.  Another thing Denyse tends to forget is that the process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

We've discusses genes mutating several times.  The simplest example is this, look at a child and look at that child's parents.  Without doing a genetic analysis, you can easily see that a child is not a carbon copy of one parent, but an amalgamation of the two.  But you will most likely see traits that don't exist in either parent.  If you do the genetic analysis you can see the differences more clearly.  This is an example of mutation.  Unlike the comic version, mutations are rarely large scale changes like 4 hands, but most are small differences that have little impact on much of anything.  There are many, many examples of genes mutating, Prof. Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment is another excellent example, and one well documented.  Of course about now Creationists like to trot out the odds argument, but in humans there are an average of 150-200 mutations per offspring, when compared to the parents.  That's not 150-200 mutations per generation, but per off-spring.  So when you look at an entire generation of people, there are 150-200 mutations times the total number in that population, a staggering number.  In the US in just one year an estimated 3.8 million babies are born.  That's about 600 million mutations, in one year.   Suddenly the odds argument makes even less sense than usual.

Here is where Denyse gets hung up, 'individuals are selected'.  She seems to think that means literally selected!  Someone has to line 'em up and point to the ones that survive and let the others just drop dead.  Sorry, Denyse, doesn't work that way.

When talking about evolution, we aren't talking about an pointing finger selection, nothing like the life guard at the gene pool, "Hey, you outta the pool, you aren't allowed to procreate!"  We are talking about genes that affect survival and reproductive opportunity.  Genes that increase either, or both of these, will show a demonstrable increase within the population.  Note -- within the population!  Genes that negatively affect either of these will show a decrease.  That's not to say an individual cannot or will not procreate, but that over time the allele frequency within a population will change based on the environment.  In her own example there is nothing in evolutionary theory that says Tom, Dick, or Harry will or will not procreate.  There isn't even anything determining their fitness.  Her view of sexual selection is rather limited, isn't it?

She tries to use 'sexual selection' as a mechanism for major evolutionary changes, yet it is only one of the mechanisms for evolutionary change.  Whether or not it's a major change depends on many factors that Denyse doesn't seem to mention.  For example, I've talked before about Elephants and how for years, if not centuries, large tusked males had an evolutionary advantage and subsequently had more offspring.  The alleles for large tusks increased with the population until it was at something like 90%.  Then along came hunting and poaching.  and now the alleles for large tusks are a disadvantage (a change in the environment).  Suddenly when mating season starts, there are fewer and fewer tusked males, so the tusk-less males, are the only game in town.  Now it's 90% tusk-less offspring.  Can you better see the 'selection' now, Denyse?  Yes, I bet if you ever read this, you'll claim since man is doing the selection for tusks, it's an intelligence.  Although I would debate the use of the word intelligence for hunting a species to the point this happens, but the environment is still doing the selection, regardless of the reason for the decreasing population of tusked elephants.


My favorite example of sexual selection was a joke "Why do rock stars marry super models?  Because they can!"  Think about it and look at some of the rock stars.  Ugly human beings, take Mick Jagger for example!  If he weren't the front man of Rolling Stone, do you really think he would have had 7 children with 4 different women (multiple super models!) if he were not the front-man for the Rolling Stones?  His oldest and youngest are 29 years apart!  That's sexual selection!  His genes have spread further in the human population than my much more modest efforts, but then I can't sing a note.  Well that's not true.  I can sing one note, it's when I try and piece two or more together that people start running from the room.

The reality is the concept of sexual selection has expanded a great deal since Darwin first postulated it.  But of course Denyse can't seem to get the idea that Darwin is not the end-all of evolutionary theory, can she?  It also looks like Denyse is using a common Discovery Institute tactic, demanding a complete and absolute answer or she dismisses anything less.  We've talked about that before.  They offer nothing and expect acceptance, but if a real scientists can't be 100% absolute, they are in the wrong.  Science doesn't work that way, but is anyone surprised that Denyse may be lacking in basic science methodology?

Her last line:

"We are still stuck for a mechanism that replaces intelligence."

Why?  Since intelligence wasn't in the mix to begin with, we don't need to replace it.  Denyse, you haven't made an argument that intelligence is required or even necessary.  All you did was to toss out an argument that you find it impossible to accept that intelligence isn't a requirement and seeing if your argument sticks.  Nope, it slid to the floor like under-cooked spaghetti. All in all, it looks like one large argument from incredulity, that is since Denyse believes intelligence is required, she demands there must be intelligence, regardless of a lack of evidence.

Denyse O'Leary is certainly not allergic to Strawmen

Denyse O'Leary, the recently prolific mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, tries her hand at 'explaining' a few things, but she certainly does Charles Darwin a disservice.  What she does is build several straw-men, proceeds to demolish them and then pats herself on the back with a conclusion based on her demolition.  Funny how it works.  Make an unrealistic claim, destroy it, the declare victory.  You know, how did she make it through school anyway?  Oh wait, she's some sort of journalist.  OK, that makes more sense.  Someone at the DI tells her to write up something, and I guess she gets creative writing credit from the powers-that-be.  Her post is "Natural Selection: Could It Be the Single Greatest Idea Ever Invented?" is an example, although she needs to work on her creative writing skills.  I was always taught that even creative writing requires a modicum of credibility to be successful.

Here is her opening paragraph:

"Information, according to Darwin's idea (natural selection), can exist without intelligence. Nature produces intelligent designs, just because some life forms survive and others don't. That's it. That's all it takes. How odd that no one noticed."

First of all, Darwin did not mention information, certainly not how she puts it.  The whole 'information argument' is nothing more than one of the many smokescreens put out by Intelligent Design proponents.  Check out the Talk Origins site for more on this particular inanity.  As for the rest of this, Nature does not 'produce' designs, and claiming that they are 'intelligent designs' is pretty foolish.  By using the word 'design', it assumes something not in evidence.  At best the phrase should be 'nature produces the appearance of design', but that would require a level of honesty also not in evidence.

Now, the second sentence shows mainly that little Denyse doesn't really understand evolution very well.  To paraphrase for brevity:  'some life forms survive and others do not'.  If she understood the actual theory she would know that survival is a result, but not of evolution -- the Theory of Evolution (TOE) doesn't determine survival, it discusses and explains populations and alleles within a population.  Some of those alleles aid in survival and reproductive opportunity, others do not, and still other are benign on the subject.  Survival isn't determined by the TOE and painting it as such gives Denyse a target to shoot at, no matter how unrealistic it might be.

And as for no one noticing, if she was talking about 'Natural Selection', someone apparently did.  His name was Charles Darwin.  If she was commenting that no one noticed 'intelligent designs', it's hard to notice what only exists in the wishful thinking of certain stripes of theists, like Denyse.  Throughout history the appearance of design was noticed, and noticed well before Darwin ever walked the Earth.

Next straw-man:

"That distinction can prove relevant if one thinks civil liberties matter. Many of us live in countries where the invocation of a supreme being is a basis for civil liberties (though those liberties may not extend to mosquitoes)."

Civil liberties are based in law, not the invocation of one deity or another.  Now I know various theists like to think their particular religion is the basis for so many things, but most legal systems draw from many sources.  If a Christian wants to point to the 10 Commandments, they really should look more at the historical source for those, as opposed to the stories.  But then, most theists rarely like the look past the stories, I think they are too afraid they might learn something.  So claiming that civil liberties are based on invocations of one deity of another is just another straw-man.

Here's my personal favorite:

"Darwin's theory of evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) is a cultural icon, like the Big Bang, or e=mc². One needn't know anything specific about any of these ideas. Indeed, media professionals can be passionately devoted to Darwinism without knowing anything about it at all.
That makes sense. Professed loyalty to Darwin is an admission to good parties. And Darwinism's relationship to modern warfare and eugenics is drowned out by cultural support."

Did little Denyse forget that it is not Darwin's Theory of Evolution (TOE).  I know, I know, I have mentioned it before, but vilifying a man is so much easier than refuting a scientific theory, especially when you and your group never seems to produce anything scientific.  Vilifying a man makes it  so much more personal.  If Denyse was serious about damaging the TOE, she might do the science that could over . . . Oh wait, we are talking about the DI here, what was I saying, plus Denyse is a journalist.

Now, Since when is any scientific theory a cultural icon?  Darwin might be considered one, but the scientific Theory of Evolution is not.  Oh, we all know how much the DI wishes it was so.  Cultural icons come and go, but scientific theories are not so easily dismissed.  As for 'professing' such helps get you invited to good parties, how foolishly dismissive can Denyse get?  Really?  Good parties?  Is that the best she has?  So now we know the real reason the folks at the Discovery Institute refuse to accept the Theory of Evolution.  It's not their religious beliefs as we all thought and even as they explained in their own documentation.  They are blaming not 'believing' in Darwin is the reason they never got to go to the 'good' parties.  Denyse, and the rest of your ID'iots, might look for other reasons you never got invited . . . but then self-examination is harder than rationalization, isn't it.

Little Denyse also needs a history lesson.  Only the DI, and other Creationist groups, are claiming Evolution's relationship to modern warfare and eugenics.  People who actually study this stuff, unlike the DI, know better.  I think she's been reading Michael Flannery (DI fellow who purports to be a historian).  Apparently Flannery is a good a historian as Denyse is a journalist.

Here is her definition of the TOE:

"Here it is: Information can be created without intelligence. That is, natural selection acting on random mutation explains the order of life we see all around us. What can't survive won't, and that explains how very complex life forms and structures -- including the human mind -- get built up.
True: Things that can't survive don't. But why would that fact alone drive nature to produce anything as simple as a kitten, let alone a math genius?"

Once again, with feeling, the TOE does not address 'information' and claiming that it can be defined as 'Information being created without intelligence' is mostly a whole lot of drivel.  Part of evolutionary theory, I will emphasis 'part', is Natural Selection.  Another part is Random Mutation, but little journalist-wanna-be Denyse is leaving out one hell of a lot of what the theory actually says.  But then how can she whine about it, if she actually understood it, she couldn't keep her job at the DI.

As for her play for cuteness, using a picture of a cute and cuddly kitten.  Kittens are not simple.  Have you seen the genome for a cat?  Obviously Denyse hasn't, 20,285 genes, and we humans share something like 90% of them, oh, and Denyse, that includes math geniuses.

Little Denyse does say one sentence that I have to agree with:

"Ideas have consequences."

Yes, ideas have consequences.  Darwin's ideas, and those who have expanded on his ideas, have opened up the biological world in a way that has led to places undreamed of in Darwin's day.  Evolution impacts us all, in food production, medicine, ecology and the environment, just to name a few.  Pretty impressive set of results/consequences!  The Discovery Institute's ideas have consequences as well . . . and their results are listed where exactly?

DI's Denyse O'Leary sounds puzzled!

The Discovery Institute's Denyse O'Leary is at it again, claiming that it's not Darwin's world.  This is nothing more than a classic straw-man argument.  For those of you not sure of what that means, it's when you build a nonsensical argument, destroy it, and then claim some sort of victory.  Sorta like pseudo-voodoo, which explains Denyse perfectly.

Her latest whine "Natural Genetic Engineering? Natural Popcorn? Or Something More Important?" over on the DI's Evolution News and Views site, or is that Views and News?  Since they rarely report any actual news without putting their own spin, it's hard to tell the difference between the 'news' and the 'views'.  I wonder if Denyse also writes for Fox Pseudo-News?  Anyway, she's busy trying to marginalize Darwin once again by naming a few of the things we have hard the temerity to learn since Darwin first published.  Her straw-man is pretty obvious.  She's trying to marginalize Darwin as a key figure in the history of Biology.  She's not the only one at the DI trying this foolish tactic.  How often have various DI talking heads posted about Darwin being the root of Racism or how Darwin caused WWII.  All an effort to marginalize Darwin so they can try and slide their own pseudo-scientific ideas into a perceived vacuum.

Yes, Denyse, since 1861 the science of Biology has moved well ahead of where Darwin was.  Charles Darwin and Natural Selection is at least one chapter in any decent biology text (I would recommend 'Biology' by Ken Miller and Joe Levine), but it's not the only chapter.  It's one piece of many pieces, a key piece, but not the only piece.

Have you ever assembled a puzzle, for example one of those 1000 piece puzzles of the intricately colored garden.  You tend to work at it for hours and hours and at some point you find one particular piece and suddenly a large part of the puzzle comes together.  That's what Charles Darwin did.  He didn't finish the puzzle, but he found a piece that brought meaning to many other pieces.  Since then a great many pieces have been added by other scientists.  Unlike a puzzle, when it comes to science, you have no idea how many pieces there are or what the finished product will look like. 

Since Darwin's day there are a number of things we have learned.  First of all, there are a hell of a lot more than 1000 pieces in Biology.  We also learned that for every piece we do find, it seems to expand the puzzle as new knowledge not only answers some questions but tends to cause more questions to be asked.  Perfectly fitting pieces are pretty rare, most pieces start out quite provisionally (hypotheses) as as support builds they fit better and better (theories). 

To continue the puzzle analogy, what Denyse, and her masters at the Discovery Institute, have been trying to do is remove Darwin's piece, or pieces, in hopes that the rest of the puzzle will simply collapse.  What they have found that removing a piece isn't as simple as claiming it no longer fits, or trying to paint Darwin into roles that do not apply -- they have to be able to back that up . . . which they have failed repeatedly.  And Denyse, pointing out things that have been learned since Darwin does not diminish Darwin's contributions in any way.

One of the things they fail to understand is that their desire to remove Darwin's piece and substitute one of their own is not workable without their piece's ability to fit as precisely as Darwin's does today.  To date, their piece is like a broken tinker toy connector and they are trying to force it to fit into a 1000 piece puzzle of a garden scene.  Forcing it with school boards and politicians doesn't work, not that they will ever admit that.  What they are missing is science.  Biology has changed a lot in 150+ years, Intelligent Design arguments have not changed much since William Paley's famous use of the Watchmaker analogy.  Maybe Denyse will make more sense next time, but I expect her to meet my already low expectations.