[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>    
   >>    
   >> There are two proper meanings to "conservation of information".  One   
   >> has to do with physics and doesn't apply at all to Darwinism.  The   
   >> other is an axiom of algorithms, that the info coming out of processes   
   >> can't exceed the amount going into them.   
   >   
   >Yes, from a quick AI summary - physics: total information + entropy    
   >remains constant, the black hole paradox etc, and algorithmic:    
   >"randomness/information cannot be increased by a computable process".   
   >   
   >>    
   >> It's not obvious what you mean by that phrase.  My understanding is   
   >> biological information is stored in patterns which require work/energy   
   >> to preserve, and become lost without it.  That's called entropy, which   
   >> life is very good at increasing.   
   >>    
      
      
   Why mention CSI here?  "conservation of information" <> CSI.   
      
      
   >Dembski illustrates the concept of CSI as:   
   >   
   >- A long, random sequence of letters is complex but not specified.   
   >   
   >- A short sequence spelling "the" is specified but not complex (it has a    
   >high probability of occurring).   
   >   
   >- A sequence corresponding to a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and    
   >specified.   
   >   
   >A biological example of CSI would be a DNA sequence and its    
   >corresponding protein, which to embody CSI must be both at least several    
   >hundred units long and a functional combination among a very large    
   >majority of nonfunctional sequences.   
   >   
   >Even if this is accepted, related questions include:   
   >   
   >- what actuial fraction of all possible combinations are functional?   
   >   
   >- what is the topology of the fitness landscape to search for the    
   >functional peaks? (e.g. incremental traversability)   
      
      
   Dembski's CSI is one of the many "complexity, complexity, complexity"   
   arguments anti-evolutionists trot out.  Since you brought it up, you   
   now have the obligation to explain why complexity can't evolve by   
   unguided natural processes aka random mutation plus natural selection   
   aka Darwinian evolution.  Good luck with that.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)