Some of you are raring to go with responses to the Uncommon Descent post Dr. Ewert Answers. Adapa dropped the following into a thread in which I hope to engage Ewert in discussion of my own question, not Andy’s. Have fun.
Over at UD Ewert hand-waved away this question by Andy:
Andy: “At ENV you said: “The universe must have begun with a large amount of active information with respect to the target of birds” How did you determine birds were a “target”? What of the billions of other living and extinct species?
…by just C&Ping more of the orifinal ENV post.
Ewert: “One might ask, why birds? Birds are, in this discussion, thus far the target. By “target,” we do not mean something for which the search is actively looking. Recall that the only requirement of the search is that it be representable as a probability distribution. The target plays no role in what constitutes a search; rather, the target only features in the context of measuring the active information in a search. The target is effectively the measuring stick. The choice of target is arbitrary, and I could have as easily chosen cities, paintings, beetles, cows, volcanoes, mountains, lakes, or crystals. The same conclusion applies to all of them: they show up far more often than chance would lead us to expect. Within a materialist framework, they have to be explained by a process biased in favour of producing them.”
If any target will do then what’s the point of this “active information” bafflegab? Isn’t this just the lottery fallacy again?
As for the last part
Ewert: “The same conclusion applies to all of them: they show up far more often than chance would lead us to expect. Within a materialist framework, they have to be explained by a process biased in favour of producing them.”
No shit. The process is called evolution. Scientists have been studying it for 155 years.