Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

I thought that was funny.

Perhaps, but what some people find funny, others find offensive. The point is that you can't complain about being attacked when you do it yourself, whether it was meant as humour or not.

So the developmental pattern has changed in both lineages, or perhaps changed in only one lineage. Your point? We still see a nested hierarchy, as expected. Can you explain why phalanges and backbones are not homologous structures?

But you did mention information quite a few times, and now you have switched over to specified complexity. This is called "moving the goal posts". So why is it not useful for determining an information gain or loss in genomes?

Hi havoc, Perhaps you could supply the definition of "information that Gitt uses in that book, and cut through to the pertinent point?Amazon.com

quote:

---

In his fascinating new book, In the Beginning Was Information, Dr. Werner Gitt helps the reader see how the very presence of information reveals a Designer ...

---

Werner Gitt - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Werner Gitt (born 22 February 1937) is a German engineer and young earth creationist.

​

Gitt was an engineer professor at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology). By the 1990s he was assuming a leadership role in the German creationist movement, through the publication of several influential creationist books. He was one of the leaders of the nondenominational Wort und Wissen (Word and Knowledge) society, the largest creationist society in Germany, with a membership of 230 and a mailing list of 7,000. The society was headed by theologian Richard Junker.[1]

---

Sounds like another YEC\ID creationist hack pretending to do math to me.Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt

quote:

---

... Gitt defines the following empirical principles:

​

1. No information can exist without a code.

​

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

​

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

​

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

​

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

​

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

​

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

​

8. No information can exist without a will.

---

Sounds like he is assuming the conclusion in the premises to me ... more:

quote:

---

Where Gitt Goes Wrong

​

A striking contradiction is readily apparent in Gitt's thinking- he holds that his view of information is an extension of Shannon, even while he rejects the underpinnings of Shannon's work. Contrast Gitt's words ...

​

In SC2 Gitt notes that Chaitin showed randomness cannot be proven (see Chaitin's article "Randomness and Mathematical Proof"), and that the cause of a string of symbols must be therefore be known to determine information is present; yet in SC1 he relies on discerning the "ulterior intention at the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic levels." In other words, Gitt allows himself to make guesses about the intelligence and purpose behind a source of a series of symbols, even though he doesn't know whether the source of the symbols is random. Gitt is trying to have it both ways here. He wants to assert that the genome fits his strictly non-random definition of information, even after acknowledging that randomness cannot be proven.

​

(There is a deeper problem here, in that Chaitin is discussing algorithmic randomness and not statistical randomness. Algorithmic randomness for a given string depends on the selection of reference computer — see Algorithmic Information Theory. Chaitin shows that you can’t prove a string is uncompressible or algorithmically random on a given reference computer. Now a string may be laden with meaning yet algorithmically random on a given computer. It may also be meaningless yet highly compressible. Statistical randomness is a different concept, as long as we stick with finite-length strings. While it is possible to compare use statistical tests on long strings, there are classes of deterministic programs called Pseudo-Random Number Generators or PRNGs, of great importance to cryptography, that meet statistical tests for randomness. In other words, neither type of randomness can be proven, but Gitt appears to be confusing the two types of randomness.)

​

Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions.

​

Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided). Since Gitt can't define what meaning is sufficiently to measure it, his ideas don't amount to much more than arm-waving.

​

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

​

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.

---

Perhaps you can provide "information" that shows that there is some useful "information" from his book?Start with a definition of what he means by information and then show how it is calculated as a measurable quantity in any specific organism.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : splng

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Where is the violation? We don't see ANY VERTEBRATES with a forward facing retina, including those that share the same ecological niches that cephalopods occupy. The eyes fall into the expected nested hierarchy that the theory of evolution predicts.And I am still waiting for you to measure the specified complexity in the DNA sequence I posted in a previous message.

Gitt's writings are not "well thought out".He commits a number of howlers, but the most glaring and obvious is that he defines information as having an intelligent source --- which is pure sleight of hand, because it throws no light on the source of information in DNA, it just changes the question to whether there is any information in DNA in Gitt's sense of the word information.By analogy, if he belonged to a different religion he might redefine lightning as that which is produced when the thunder-god Thor brandishes his magic hammer Mjǫlnir. But that sheds no light on what actually produces lightning, it merely leaves us doubting that there is any such thing as lightning in Gitt's sense of the word lightning.What is required are some actual facts, not an end-run around the English language.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi havoc Molecular motor - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Molecular motors are biological molecular machines that are the essential agents of movement in living organisms. Generally speaking, a motor may be defined as a device that consumes energy in one form and converts it into motion or mechanical work; for example, many protein-based molecular motors harness the chemical free energy released by the hydrolysis of ATP in order to perform mechanical work [1]. In terms of energetic efficiency, these types of motors can be superior to currently available man-made motors. One important difference between molecular motors and macroscopic motors is that molecular motors operate in the thermal bath, an environment where the fluctuations due to thermal noise are significant.

---

This only works by definition, from adapting what motors accomplish to describe organic molecular chemical functions. By this definition any organic molecular structure that results in movement from the use of energy is a motor, which means virtually every part of every cell. Curiously, I don't see that as either remarkable or useful. Sounds more like an argument from incredulity: wow look its a motor, therefore it must be designed? Really? or is this just another argument from incredulity? Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... Message 33:

quote:

---

One of the "icons" of the Neo-Paleyist "intelligent" design concepts is the bacterial flagellum. Whether or not this concept has been debunked as an "irreducibly complex" mechanism is open to some discussion, but here we look at whether this "icon" of many an ID essay has the markings of "intelligent" design or those of "silly" design.

Flagellum Fun Facts

​

First lets look at a diagram of this mechanism, drawn to make it look as mechanical as possible:

​

What happens is that ions cause the base to rotate, the "hook" is fixed (to aim the whip-like end of the flagellum) and the end whips about while it spins, at speeds that can reach many 100 Hertz (revolutions per second), and driving the bacterial cell at several body lengths a second ⁽¹⁾.

​

{abe}An nice animation of this mechanism can be seen at the Access Research Network Molecular Machines Museum website on The Bacterial Flagellum. {/abe}

​

Obviously a highly efficient motor design, making maximum usage of the energy expended ... or is it?

​

Here we have a similar arrangement, the spinning drive mechanism extends down a tube, is turned and then exits the "hook" to turn the drive part of the motor, a small propeller.

​

We know one of these mechanisms was intentionally designed as a method of locomotion and for maximum efficiency in it's use of energy. Furthermore we know that the elements of this design have been developed over the course of many years of experimentation to select the best gear ratios, material strengths, power ratings and propeller design. Propellers in particular have undergone extreme design for improved efficiency, borrowing from the more prolific design of airplane wings and propellers in the process (such borrowing being an element frequently seen in good design when some other design element already is known to work and work well).

​

So the question is whether the flagellum design measures up to the known reference intelligent design, or is it just flailing about?

Any Bubba Can Do This Experiment

​

There is a simple experiment that anyone with ready access to a couple of similar boats with similar engines can do evaluate the question:

• Use one boat as-is: this is the control, the known intelligent design
• On the other remove the propeller and replace it with a 50 foot length of 1" diameter hose, hose clamped tightly to the driveshaft\spindle of the outboard
• Load up the boats with kids (so they can ask "are we there yet?")
• Race. See who gets "out of the hole" first, who tops out first and what their tops speeds are.
• Put in reverse and repeat.
• Match speed and compare engine RPM (revolutions per minute) and fuel consumption.
• If you feel that you need more evidence, try different size hoses and different lengths.
• See if the kids are laughing at the hose or the propeller.

​

Oh, and if the flagellum design wins? Publish, become a national hero to endangered manatees, broken propellers sufferers, etcetera and put many propeller design companies out of work.

​

Note: a 25 foot boat traveling at 50 mph is traveling ~3 times its length in a second.

​

Silliness

​

Now consider that it would be extremely easy to make the flagellum become a propeller by the intelligent input of design information from other available systems. The flagellum could be easily split into two (or more) filaments that are then flattened and angled apart in a "Y" type pattern, and with one leg bent up and one down and both shortened (less material overall = more efficient design) you have a rudimentary propeller. Add some twist and some shape (such as you find on a penguin wing - used to "fly" underwater) and you have a more efficient design.

​

We can get an idea of what this simple modification would look like by again referring to known intelligent design, this time to an early propeller design before scientific methods were applied ⁽²⁾:

Except of course that a central spindle is not necessary and could be eliminated. But even these early propellers are silly by today's standards of design ⁽³⁾.

​

The hose on the other hand can be nothing but a silly way to waste gas.

​

This mechanism displays an excessively high Silliness Index (SI).

---

btw -- you might want a steel cage over the hose boat, just in case the end of the hose whips around.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi again havoc, try to stick to one issue at a time and you might make some sense, rather than dropping argument after argument. You were the one to introduce the poor analogy in the first place, so now you are complaining that it doesn't represent evolution? LOL. Those that survive and breed will survive and breed, some will survive and breed better than others, but in all cases it is a matter of fitness to the ecological opportunities that drives the selection.In the case of this poor analogy what we have for the "ecological opportunities" is the phrase from Shakespeare that you select, and selection takes those tiles that fit the ecological opportunities, and reshuffles the rest. This would represent (badly) following generations and testing them for fitness to the ecological opportunities.It would be better a better analogy if you took say 10 or 20 tiles at random from the pile, and tested them for fitness, then took another 10 or 20 (with a supposedly endless pile of tiles to draw from, but you could keep the relative relationships of various letters in the mix).You could also try taking a specific phrase to start with and then replacing letters until you developed a different phrase, but the modeling there is even worse compared to actual biology. And that was not what you asked. Your post Message 615 said: so once again ... ... you are moving the goalposts. Answered on Message 634 (See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, particularly part 2 of the first post) and Message 669Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Your argument is flawed. The small-scale dynamics of water are different from its large-scale fluid dynamics, because at a small scale its viscosity becomes a much more important factor while inertia becomes negligible. You'd have to test the bacterium against something of a similar size.

Do you really not get the correlation between my Shakespeare analogy and novel functional information?And by the way I have been having multiple conversations with several different people perhaps this is why you think I have been jumping around. I have only been responding to posts directed to me.

Glad to here you admit that design has markings. Now does something that is designed require a designer?

Do you admit that there is more information in specifically ordered letters such as and instruction manual than there is in random keystrokes?Shannon would measure them the same. This is not how you should measure the information in a code.
.Edited by havoc, : quotes.

Well that might not be a fair question since I do not know the language of DNA and amino acids. A bit like showing me a Spanish book and asking me to translate.However since I do so love these discussions I will try to play along. Dembski purposes a filter to determine design or specified complexity. Eliminate regularity resulting from natural law ie: crystal structure or a pulsar wave. Eliminate randomness which is the result of chance. What you are left with is design. These events are both specified and of vanishingly small probabilities. Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.A question for you, do you doubt that specified complexity exists or do you just reject it because it is not as easily measured as Shannon’s bits?

Sir I dont think you understand sports fans to well. Im a Yankees fan hes a redsocks fan. Im sure he found that as polite joking. I know I would have if the rolls were reversed.