Some real scientists have recently published a paper about information, and the Discovery Institute is all over it.
The real science is here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1002168
The DI's pseudo-science is here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06...her097221.html
The DI's spin concludes:
What they would like you to think is that the paper somehow supports their own nebulous use of the word "information". It does not.
Here is how the real scientists estimated the total information:
So the information corresponds directly to the mass of DNA on the planet. The equation is simply:
Think about that.
Think about a growing plant. It gains weight as it grows. It does so by increasing the number of cells, which means the number of picograms of DN A is increasing. And that means the total information of the tree is increasing as it grows.
What did William Dembski say?
Far from being a problem for evolutionists, this paper completely refutes Dembski's supposed "Law of conservation of information"!
I will note that Dembski has corollaries for his supposed law:
Is the tree not a closed system? Are we smuggling in information anywhere? The tree is growing using (essentially) water, carbon dioxide and sunlight. No DNA there. And yet somehow it generate a huge amount of information. How can that possibility be? Unless the tree is intelligent... or Dembski is wrong!
The real science is here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1002168
The DI's pseudo-science is here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06...her097221.html
The DI's spin concludes:
Originally posted by Discovery Institute
Here is how the real scientists estimated the total information:
Originally posted by Real Scientists
Code:
[total number of picograms of DNA] x [information per picogram] = [total information]
Think about a growing plant. It gains weight as it grows. It does so by increasing the number of cells, which means the number of picograms of DN A is increasing. And that means the total information of the tree is increasing as it grows.
What did William Dembski say?
Originally posted by Dembski
I will note that Dembski has corollaries for his supposed law:
Originally posted by Dembski