>SO this is the same old "information" argument ? Please define information,
after all the
>proponents of this "information" idea need to show why this is a problem.
>
Information is, by the Merriam Webster dictionary:
2b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more
alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or
binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
(Nice that it uses DNA as an example :) )
Now wouldn't it be cool if there was a more scientific definition as well.
The information needed for life, is three-fold, in my estimation.
First, is the genetic code - the system of three bases specifying one amino
acid (sometimes there being more than one codon per amino acid as well as
"stop" and "start" codons). I would like a coherent theory explaining how
this could come about by natural, random interactions.
Of course there are two problems here 1) are these interactions random 2) are there any inherent problems why this could NOT have happened ?
The second, is the combining of these codons into sentences which produce
useful proteins.
The third, is the collecting of these sentences to create and more complex
and diverse organisms. I am aware of the recent discussion on gene
duplication, etc.
And yet I have still not seen any coherent argument why information is an issue here.
It takes more evolution, IMO, to come from simple chemicals to single celled
animals than from those single celled animals to humans or other complex
organisms.
The data suggest that this might not be correct. Abiogenesis had only a 0.5 billion years to happen.