Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supernatural information supplier
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 196 of 208 (171764)
12-27-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by mike the wiz
12-27-2004 4:32 PM


Re: Irrefutable mike strikes
Mike,
If crib death kills ten thousand babies every year, then there is a God.
See how easy this is?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by mike the wiz, posted 12-27-2004 4:32 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by mikehager, posted 12-27-2004 5:21 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6466 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 197 of 208 (171769)
12-27-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by MrHambre
12-27-2004 4:52 PM


Re: Irrefutable mike strikes
Actually, I think the point really is, "Mike the Wiz says there is a God, so there is."
That's really the only argument he's ever made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by MrHambre, posted 12-27-2004 4:52 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by tsig, posted 12-28-2004 12:55 AM mikehager has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 198 of 208 (171827)
12-28-2004 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by mikehager
12-27-2004 5:21 PM


Re: Irrefutable mike strikes
Thats the only argument they all have.
{added y to the}
This message has been edited by Flying Hawk, 12-28-2004 00:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by mikehager, posted 12-27-2004 5:21 PM mikehager has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5814 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 199 of 208 (173779)
01-04-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by dshortt
12-23-2004 3:43 PM


Re: Is evolution of information possible?
Hello again, hope you had a good Christmas!
Sorry about the delay in replying, I should have warned you that I was going to be away from the keyboard for a week and a bit. .
Why do I feel like I am walking right into a sucker punch?
Alas (for me) there is no knockout blow . I was simply trying to dispel the common creationist misconception that biological processes (i.e. evolution) could never produce an increase in information and therefore an omnipotent intelligence is required as part of the explanation. Evolution works on what is already there; just as the evidence shows that new body parts are modified from previous structures, the evolution of genes and where their proteins are produced (‘information’ if you like) is clearly a case of duplication and diversification.
When you start to look at the DNA sequences encoding proteins it is possible to recognise ‘protein families’. These are proteins that are so similar to one another that they are clearly the product of duplication, followed by random mutation. There are examples where two related genes are next to each other on a chromosome, and on another chromosome there is a similar segment of DNA caused by the duplication of the original duplication event ( )
Here are a couple of examples of what I mean:
Wnts are a family of proteins that were first identified (I think) as a mutation in fruit flies. They are soluble proteins which are secreted from cells, and have a wide variety of functions: from cell proliferation to organogenesis. The number of wnts that a organism has varies, and can be traced back through related species:
Nematode worm - 5 genes
Fruit fly - 7 genes
Zebra fish - 12 genes
Frog - 16 genes
Chicken - 11 genes
Mouse - 19 genes
Human - 19 genes
Now these are not an exact progression because gene duplication is a random event and these organisms were chosen for their convenience to work with, not their evolutionary significance. Even so, comparisons can be made.
G-protein linked receptors are a huge protein family which span the cell’s membrane seven times (they are sometimes known as serpentine proteins for obvious reasons). It has been estimated that they make up around 5% of the nematode genome, and that there are many more in mammals.
The production of new genes is a far from magical process, and although there is much we don’t know about how these mutations drove evolution I don’t think we need to invoke the supernatural yet.
If you accept that then I suppose it all boils down to the origin of information — the protein synthesis machinery that gives us your ‘meaning’. Which part of it, in your opinion could not have come about by random mutation and natural selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by dshortt, posted 12-23-2004 3:43 PM dshortt has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 208 (174111)
01-05-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by dshortt
12-27-2004 11:19 AM


Re: Adding information
dshortt,
Sorry for not getting back to you in recent days. Took a couple weeks off from work and I forced myself to stay away from the computer for that stretch of time.
I have thought about your arguments about "information" and "meaning". I contend that the combination of mutation (change) and selection (ie natural selection) creates information with meaning. I think this would be best if we focus on one example that illustrates my argument.
Sickle cell anemia is a condition caused by a mutated form of human hemoglobin. When you have two of the mutated genes you develop sickle shaped red blood cells which cause great pain and a shorter life expectancy. Having two copies of the gene (ie being homozygous for the sickle cell gene) also confers resistance to malaria which is also life threatening. If you have just one copy of the gene (ie heterozygous) then you do not develop anemia but still have resistance to malaria.
So we have a trade off. The homozygous condition will allow you to reach reproductive maturity, but will limit your life span. Being heterozygous or homozygous for the hemS gene (the sickle cell gene) gives you a much better chance of reaching sexual maturity than those that do not have the hemS gene, being that they have a much higher chance of dying of malaria as a child. So, in areas that have high levels of malaria carrying mosquitoes we would expect this gene to be more prevalent due to selective pressures. And, wouldn't you guess, this is exactly what we see.
This graph illustrates the prevalance of the hemS gene in African and Arabian populations.
The second illustration illustrates the distribution of malaria within Africa.
If you will notice, the two graphs correlate with each other. Areas high in malaria coincide with populations that have a high percentage of hemS homozygous and heterozygous individuals.
The hemS mutation gives a new funcitonality, resistance to malaria. It also has a negative effect in the form of sickle cell anemia in homozygous individuals. So, there are both positive and negative selection pressures on this gene. The environment is what gives this gene meaning, that is whether it is "bad" or "good". This is how evolution is able to create information with meaning, through random mutations that are then selected for or against by the benefit it confers or the disadvantages it confers within a specific environment.
Do you consider the hemS gene to be an increase in information, or do you not? And for what reasons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by dshortt, posted 12-27-2004 11:19 AM dshortt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 1:15 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 201 of 208 (174115)
01-05-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Loudmouth
01-05-2005 12:57 PM


Re: Adding information
Loudmouth writes:
I have thought about your arguments about "information" and "meaning". I contend that the combination of mutation (change) and selection (ie natural selection) creates information with meaning...Do you consider the hemS gene to be an increase in information...
If we're talking about Shannon information, then I have two comments. First, regarding the amount of information, this is an engineering question with a precise answer. Dshortt's answer can only shed light on how well he understands information theory.
Second, meaning is a separate issue from the engineering issues regarding information - meaning is subjective and has nothing to do with information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Loudmouth, posted 01-05-2005 12:57 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2005 1:24 PM Percy has replied
 Message 203 by Loudmouth, posted 01-05-2005 1:26 PM Percy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 202 of 208 (174118)
01-05-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
01-05-2005 1:15 PM


An overstatement?
... meaning is subjective and has nothing to do with information.
Isn't this a bit of an overstatement. We are, I think, talking specifically about information which the context gives meaning to.
There are, in living things, "meaning" machines. These take the information content of DNA and produce living structures which have meaning in the environments in which they find themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 1:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 2:32 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 208 (174121)
01-05-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Percy
01-05-2005 1:15 PM


Re: Adding information
quote:
If we're talking about Shannon information, then I have two comments. First, regarding the amount of information, this is an engineering question with a precise answer. Dshortt's answer can only shed light on how well he understands information theory.
Dshortt seems to have shied away from Shannon information. I can find it if you like, but he argues (IIRC) that Shannon info is incapable of producing meaning within biology. Dshortt seems to be looking for dshortt information, a type of information that he alone knows the definition of but is unable to accurately define. A kind of "I'll know it when I see it" sort of thing. If my hemS example does not fit into what he is looking for, then we may actually get a little closer to a clearer definition.
quote:
Second, meaning is a separate issue from the engineering issues regarding information - meaning is subjective and has nothing to do with information.
I am trying to show that the environment gives mutations an objective "meaning" through selection. This may not be adequate for information theory, but I am hoping it is adequate for the type of information that dshortt is looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 1:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 2:52 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 204 of 208 (174122)
01-05-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by NosyNed
12-26-2004 6:55 PM


Re: Starting from scratch
Bumping msg 172 for Dshortt. There were questions there trying to clarify what you meant.
I don't remember seeing any clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by NosyNed, posted 12-26-2004 6:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 205 of 208 (174140)
01-05-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by NosyNed
01-05-2005 1:24 PM


Re: An overstatement?
NosyNed writes:
Percy writes:
... meaning is subjective and has nothing to do with information.
Isn't this a bit of an overstatement. We are, I think, talking specifically about information which the context gives meaning to.
This is from Shannon's paper:
"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem."
Meaning is an interpretation we ourselves cast upon the information. In Shannon information theory, meaning and information are independent concepts, and Shannon information deals only with the latter.
So when it is asked whether information increased with the addition of the sickle cell anemia allele, if we're talking about Shannon information then that is independent from meaning, which is the expression of that gene in the organism and its interplay with the environment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2005 1:24 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2005 3:47 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 206 of 208 (174148)
01-05-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Loudmouth
01-05-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Adding information
Loudmouth writes:
Dshortt seems to have shied away from Shannon information. I can find it if you like...
Oh, no, no need to find it. I'm quite sure you're correct. Whenever Creationists raise the issue of information they're never talking about Shannon information.
...but he argues (IIRC) that Shannon info is incapable of producing meaning within biology.
And Shannon would agree with him 100%. Shannon's landmark paper says this right up front in paragraph two. I quoted this already when replying to Nosy just now, but here it is again:
"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem."
Dshortt seems to be looking for dshortt information, a type of information that he alone knows the definition of but is unable to accurately define.
Like probably everyone else here, Dshortt does not possess the ability to develop his own theory of information. And neither does Dembski, if Dshortt is going that route.
I am trying to show that the environment gives mutations an objective "meaning" through selection. This may not be adequate for information theory, but I am hoping it is adequate for the type of information that dshortt is looking for.
I agree with your strategy. My only point was that the question of information increase/decrease is independent from meaning. I'll make this clear through an extremely informal (and extremely invalid for anyone who wants to be picky) illustration. What contains more information, a empty piece of paper or the picture of the periodic table of elements? That's easy, right? Obviously, the periodic table of elements contains far more information. But what if our encoding is a "one if by land, two if by sea" type of system. We agree that if I hold up a blank piece of paper it means open your cipher book to page 10, which contains a whole slew of instructions, while if I hold up the periodic table of elements it means "Please wait."
In other words a ton of meaning can be crammed into a single bit, or there can be billions of bits with no meaning at all. It's up to us to decide.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Loudmouth, posted 01-05-2005 1:26 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Loudmouth, posted 01-05-2005 4:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 207 of 208 (174169)
01-05-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Percy
01-05-2005 2:32 PM


The meaning
In Shannon information theory, meaning and information are independent concepts, and Shannon information deals only with the latter.
We are agreeing.
The information doesn't have any dependence on the meaning.
However, that doesn't mean that the meaning isn't connected to the information. In the specific context that we are talking about the information in the genome has meaning which "some system" (the biological one supplies. I agree that has nothing to do with the engineering which is concerned with information independent of meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 2:32 PM Percy has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 208 (174184)
01-05-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
01-05-2005 2:52 PM


Re: Adding information
quote:
I agree with your strategy. My only point was that the question of information increase/decrease is independent from meaning. I'll make this clear through an extremely informal (and extremely invalid for anyone who wants to be picky) illustration. What contains more information, a empty piece of paper or the picture of the periodic table of elements? That's easy, right? Obviously, the periodic table of elements contains far more information. But what if our encoding is a "one if by land, two if by sea" type of system. We agree that if I hold up a blank piece of paper it means open your cipher book to page 10, which contains a whole slew of instructions, while if I hold up the periodic table of elements it means "Please wait."
I completely understand what you are trying to say. This is what Dr. Schneider and others have warned against, trying to apply human semantics to genetic systems. The human, "common sense" approach to information is wholly inadequate for discussing information in a genetic system. I am not well schooled in information theory, but who here is.
What I am able to recognize is the nebulous characteristics that creationists and IDists apply to genetic systems. At times it becomes ridiculous, boiling down to the following statement: "Any kind of information that mutation and selection are able to create is not sufficient." The unwillingness to define information within genetic systems is not due to an inability to understand the information but an attempt to avoid being pinned down to any one definition. It comes to the point where creationists/IDists define "new information" so that it no longer pertains to evolution. More to the point, they define new information in a way that it is no longer necessary for evolution to produce new information in order to explain the biodiversity we see today.
If the production of a new function through random mutation, such as malarial resistance, that is then selected for through natural selection is not new information, then evolution does not require new information. This is the problem that dshortt must face.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-05-2005 16:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 01-05-2005 2:52 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024