|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2005 : 15:52:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by frater_memetic_fake
Well, one, the discrimination comes on the basis of whether the system can, in theory, contain information of this kind. If we cannot see how the system could have this kind of information, then it cannot evolve.
Since virtually any system can, in theory, contain information as you have described it, this seems like a pointless distinction. For example a sand dune could, in principle, be used to store information as you have defined it.quote:
quote:
As I understand your definition most large complex arrangements of data, evolvable or not, should qualify as information.
Well, your probably right, however I don't know of any natural systems outside of DNA/RNA that would qualify.
What complex non-evolving natural systems have actually been tested to see if they fail to fit your definition?quote:
Clearly information content/storage, is only one quality that must be met by an evolving system, so by itself it is not sufficient. But. if we find this sort of information in a system in nature, I think we can safely conclude that it has been put there by evolution.
Perhaps this is true as a general rule of thumb, however it does have several shortcomings.
First it may only be true in the context of evolution on earth. Lifeforms that have evolved under different conditions than those on earth may have a much higher or lower tolerance for static in their equivalent to DNA so that the information it contains falls outside of your definition.
Second how do we know that all non-evolving natural systems do not meet the criteria?
Third it doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know. DNA is analysed and found (within certain well defined paramaters) to be not random and not a simple repetition. Frankly I suspected as much.
quote:
Well, it can't distinguish between useful/useless DNA, because too much of the information from evolved DNA will be left imprinted on junk DNA. The definition is aimed at allowing the investigation of evolvable systems in general, and is too broad to tell us much about the differences between kinds of information in DNA.
Okay, but suppose the useless DNA sequence was generated by an algorithm that was designed to mimic some natural process, like the weather?quote:
Defining life helps us sort 'important' features of life out from 'unimportant' features. Where, important and unimportant are, of course, dependent on what phenomenon you are trying to investigate. I contend that one important feature of life, from an evolutionary stand point, is the storage of information.
Agreed.quote:
While micro-biology might not elucidate the origins of life, evolutionary theory most certainly should.
I agree that they are related but they are not the same thing.quote:
Many important evolutionist wade in on the debate about what features would be necessary to create an evolvable system.
This is not really surprising since the two are interrelated.quote:
Once you have something evolving, then you are golden.
Right, because that's where evolution, which is well understood, can take over. |
 |
|
Topic Locked
