Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins

Hello TW
I'll jump in for a moment to keep things moving if that is ok. There is this quote you supplied. It is all by itself obviously wrong.First note that your source has defined information in DNA in a way that seems (as far as you quote) to be compatible with C. Shannon's definition. Let's say for now that it is.Second do you know what a point mutation is? It is a change in one of the base pairs in the DNA. Let's say somewhere in your DNA there is a string AAGCATGG. Now let's say that there is a point mutation and the next generation gets AAGCATGA instead. Now let's say that Spetner is correct and this point mutation is a reduction in information. (it isn't by the Shannon definition by the way. In fact, I am guessing that a careful calculation will show it is a tiny increase )Now we have the string AAGCATGA somewhere in some genome (maybe your grandkids). Now a point mutation occurs and we get AAGCATGG in the next generation. If the first point mutation caused a reduction information this one must be causing an increase. Do you get that?Now, we need to understand what he is saying. Clearly he can not be saying that point mutations can not increase this "information" (which isn't yet carefully enough defined -- for one thing we don't know how to calculate the amount of it yet -- for "information" as it is used most of the time we do). So the only thing he can be saying is that the ones we have studied don't increase information.But this seems enormously unlikely. For example: If you had a string in your DNA that went AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA then it contains only (about - I'm not doing the calc.) 6 bits of information. (2 bits to pick the letter out of 4 and 4 more bits to give the number of repeats). If however there is a point mutation that puts a T in place of the 8th A we now have ( I think) 15 bits of information (2 bits for the first letter, 3 bits for it's repeat length then 2 more for the T, 1 bit for it's repeat, 2 more for the next A and 3 more for it's repeat length).So we'd need Spetner's method of calculating information to check out what he says. But it sure looks wrong.

Maybe but I think it is also directly related to Shannon information too. That is related the minimum number of bits to specify the value. (the ln of as I recall).How is KC calculated?

So is there or is there not a specification for the Shannon info in AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and AAAAAAATAAAAAAAA?What is the value of each?ABE
And while we are at it can you calculate the difference in KC between the two strings above?Edited by NosyNed, : added a question

Nope.
It is a single number calculated from the ln of something or another. So that isn't it.

I am pretty sure that is wrong. But it'll have to be later before I support that.

Message 91
Percy comments here that a random stream of bits has more information than others of the same length. If that is true then the two given strings do not have the same information content.I believe you have to take the log_n of the minimum number of bits required to transmit the stream not a redundant set of bits.

I can't read the paper. Can you show how they argue for less SI in a random sequence? I don't see how that is possible given what I recall of the definition.

Why only 1 more bit? The position of the T is important not just it's presence anywhere in the string.

Thanks Percy. I finally think I get it. It is more complex (pardon the intended pun) than I realized.Now can someone try again to explain how a point mutation always reduces the information? Edited by NosyNed, : asked for more

Please see: Message 1Behe's problem is that we do see a particular kind of design. It is exactly the wrong kind of design for your argument. We do NOT see the kind of design that we know results from intelligence. We DO see the kind of design that results from unguided, unintelligent processes.

And (see post Message 69 it is a wrong explanation because it produces the wrong "kind" of design. So we have clear evidence that life does not have an intelligent designer.

And just what does he say about it?And noting what Jar had to say, you've decided that Behe is wrong now?A quick glance at the paper shows that he is NOT talking about the evolution of complex structures but about the origin of life.What we now KNOW is that once we have living things evolutionary algorithms CAN generate a "kind" of design. It is exactly the kind of design that living things give the appearance of and it is exactly NOT the kind of design that intelligence produces.If you want, now to argue about the origin of life you will have to go to another thread for that. You will also have to know just what Demski is saying. Edited by NosyNed, : added a bit

So we all agree that evolutionary processes can create a great deal of complexity.In fact, it appears that they can create almost ALL of the complexity we see in life. Behe and others pick a few (very few) things out to suggest a need for some other "help". Of course, the few they have picked on have been shown to be evolvable too. So the question is just where is this edge? Which does not answer my question about the different kinds of design at all. In fact, since he simply asserts that they can not be accounted for he shows nothing useful to you at all. Since you brought this in as a reference it would be nice if you would explain just how SC can not be accounted for?I would need you to explain just what SC is so I can recognize it when I see it. I don't get it out of the paper you referenced.

Yes they have. Behe was put on the stand and exposed.You haven't explained what SC is yet. So your quotes don't mean much yet.