Where does information come from? Darwin? Dawkins? Bueller?
It is amazing to me that anyone still believes in Darwinism now that we have entered the information age, have some understanding of the vast amount of information that is within the cell and the wondrous ways in which this information has been coded to transmit. Information will be the primary topic of this entry. We'll present two pairs of youtube videos and then a semi-technical treatise concerning information written by Dr. Werner Gitt. I will clue you in to the conclusion of this article and after you have viewed the videos for your entertainment and amusement as well as knowledge we will then present the argument that concludes as follows:
"The grand theory of atheistic evolution must attribute the origin of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy, without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. A central claim of atheistic evolution must therefore be that the macro-evolutionary processes that generate biological information are fundamentally different from all other known information-generating processes. However, the natural laws described here apply equally in animate and inanimate systems and demonstrate this claim to be both false and absurd." Dr. Werner Gitt
"The grand theory of atheistic evolution must attribute the origin of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy, without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. A central claim of atheistic evolution must therefore be that the macro-evolutionary processes that generate biological information are fundamentally different from all other known information-generating processes. However, the natural laws described here apply equally in animate and inanimate systems and demonstrate this claim to be both false and absurd." Dr. Werner Gitt
So those of you who do not bother to read the articles and have automatic boilerplate responses on hand needn't read any further. For those who are interested in learning and reasoned discussion, we go forward...
These topics are especially uncomfortable for Darwinists - the question of the origin of the Universe, the question of the origin of life and the question of the origin of information. They are hardly the only topics, for in fact Darwinists usually resort to gobbledygook when pinned down on almost any subject. First here is a two-part question and answer series after a Dr. Jxn presentation. EDIT: Videos removed from YouTube, so they have been removed from here.
"Evolutionist all have in their minds somewhere ... the assumption that somehow, somebody ... must have ... proved that mutations have the ability to create new genetic information written into the DNA of "new life forms" as they "evolve" from older ones. But there is no logic to this being able to happen -- only a "it just does" mentality. Nor is there any documentation of it ever happening -- just assumptions that currently existing genes "just must have" arisen ... in only this way. The mechanism is never discussed in any detail.
Evolutionists love to tell you "what" happened ... in their story of the history of life on Earth. They just never get around to answering the "how" part -- and they pretend to be shocked or offended, if you bring that up to them." - Dr Jxn
If you pay attention, the Darwinist is giving credit when pressed to mutations as the agent for producing information after his first attempts at gobbledygook are turned aside. Duplicating information doesn't make new information and "sister taxa" so-called do not qualify as transitional forms. Since mutations are copying errors what we see in the real world is organisms surviving in spite of rather than because of copying errors and that the information in the cell is prepared to deal in advance with some mutations. You would know this if you read my posts on facilitated variation and genetic redundancy. But still mutations are happening and they are causing organisms to lose information, not gain it. Information loss is what we observe.
On the other hand, an actual scientist such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati can have an intelligent conversation with you and answer questions plainly as asked...
Now comes the more technical aspect of the post. Remember to look back to this section and consider Dr. Gitt's well-supported claims before considering the strident claims of ill-informed self-proclaimed experts like "anonymous" and "Anonymous."
Scientific laws of information and their implications—part 1
The grand theory of atheistic evolution posits that matter and energy alone have given rise to all things, including biological systems. To hold true, this theory must attribute the existence of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. All biological systems depend upon information storage, transfer and interpretation for their operation. Thus the primary phenomenon that the theory of evolution must account for is the origin of biological information. In this article it is argued that fundamental laws of information can be deduced from observations of the nature of information. These fundamental laws exclude the possibility that information, including biological information, can arise purely from matter and energy without reference to an intelligent agent. As such, these laws show that the grand theory of evolution cannot in principle account for the most fundamental biological phenomenon. In addition, the laws here presented give positive ground for attributing the origin of biological information to the conscious, wilful action of a creator. The far-reaching implications of these laws are discussed.
Read the rest of the article at the link in the title above.