[spiritbear14]

Here is an argument against the CD. We know that DNA changes overtime due indirectly from environmental conditions through evolutionary natural selection. So, why is this not an argument for the reversed direction of information?

[andrewflnr]

Because having a vague, highly indirect, unpredictable and generally unreliable influence on genetic information is not the same as transmitting or copying it in day to day operation. Not even close, not even comparable for the purpose of answering measurable questions. The CD is not, and was never intended to be, an all-encompassing metaphysical invariant, it's an observation about biochemistry.

[robwwilliams]

Great response. Thanks.

[infradig]

The proteins don't directly change the DNA via information transfer, that's not how natural selection works.

[spiritbear14]

Not directly, but in a very long round about way they do. Like if I have a mutation that is evolutionarily positive, the only way that helps me pass on my DNA is through the expression of the proteins, without them I could not do anything. The proteins, and their interactions with the environment, creates new information that indirectly results in a evolutionary pressure on the DNA and at a population level can change it.

How can DNA 'get' more information if not from the proteins interactions with its environment?

[asdff]

Plenty of protein work with DNA in the cell. Repair protein could screw up the DNA repair, now you pass that screw up on to the daughter cells.