|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Yes it did. It was designed that way. The antibiotic was also designed to fit the gyrase. quote:I know it isn't but it lost something. That is loss of information. The deterioration of it's structure is the loss of information. If this continues that it can stop doing it's job altogether, and than the organism dies since there is nothing to coil the DNA. quote:Nope. It coils DNA. But it's structure is damaged. Therefore it lost information. It's obviously not a fatal loss, but it is a loss non the less. quote:Obviously not. quote:It has never been observed, nor has matter been seen to have properties that are known to produce information, so there is no reason to believe that it can. Hey, maybe there are little dwarfs turning the Moon around us. But we haven't seen them, so why believe in them?
quote:IS this a real argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I know it's not the same. That doesn't mean it's new information. quote:Again, you simply don't get it. New genes do not equal new information. quote:Becasue the loss is gradual. quote:Nothing is perfectly neutral. If something losses it's function, it means that it lost inforamtion for that function to do it's job. quote:Yes, becasue they will use transposons to produce it again and again. quote:Nope, it's a designed mechanism that does this. It has an algorithm that mutates the genome. But algorithms can only give you as much information as you input into them. They can't produce more than you give them. So this ability is just an expression of what the algorithm can do. quote:Because that is biologicaly meaningless. You need new CSI, not just one new nucleotide. No new functions are gained by just including one more nucleotide. quote:Gitt's information is not used for biological functions since last two levels can't be quantatively measured. It's describing information in general. For biological information you need to use CSI. But CSI is from 400 bits and up. That's about 80-something letters of latin alphabet and English language.
quote:Becasue Shannon's definition of information can't be used for biological functions. Because it only deals with the first level of information, and that is statistics. That's not enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It has twice Shannon Information (SI), but not CSI. You can't use SI to describe biological functions. quote:No, because the first one means "one", the second one means "eleven", and the third one means "thousand one hundred and eleven". Different meaning, different information. quote:Again, the same thing. This is increase in infromation becasue of the different meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:That is true. But the flower didn't create that information about how many petals it will have. It is only constantly transfering it to it's ofspring. quote:Yes, I did, in my mind. I could have written any number I wanted. Should I have chosen to write the wrong number, it would still be new information. quote:False and true. I did create new information in my mind. Becasue that's what minds do. They create knowledge. Matter can only, as you just pointed out, transfer information. quote:Exactly, becasue yes, matter can transfer and process information. But it can not originate it. Did teh flower come about by itself? quote:I agree, that's transfer of signals. quote:Well this is where you are wrong, sine you equate Shannon's model of information with the entire theory of information. Thus effectively making it useless for anything other than communication. quote:Yes, and I explained to you why you are wrong. Shannon said that meaning has nothing to do with engineering problems, but not with information theory altogether. His theory didn't include meaning becasue it's was the first model of information ever. Science advances, that's how it goes. quote:This is not an argument, this is slander. quote:Again, you are painfully wrong. Dembski has done it wonderfully with CSI. Meaning is represended with specifications. You calculate the probabillity of an object that has a specification and you quantified the frist three levels of information. quote:We'll use simpler examples. "MY HOUSE IS BIG" - this is information and means that my house is big. "MY HOUSE IS BIG""MY HOUSE IS BIG" "MY HOUSE IS BIG" "MY HOUSE IS BIG" By duplicating it 4 times I added no new meaning, even though I increased the number of letters. Still no new meaning arises. "MY HOUSE IS BIG""AND IT HAS A RED ROOF" Ah, but now, even though I have only two statements with less letters, I have more meaning, therefore more information. You have more knowledge about the house. You have more meaning. The first statement means that I have a big house. The second one means that it has a red roof. This is increase in meaning, therefore increase in information. In the previous example, no matter how much we duplicated the first statement, the meaning is always teh same. Therefore, no new information.
quote:I can't quantify Mona Lisa, so I can't say. We need a digital source. quote:No, I'm sorry, but it's you who can't quantify it. If you understood Dembski's work, you would know that he successfully quantified the first three levels. quote:It's the biological functons. Yes, it's objective, everybody finds them. quote:Oh, I see, you dont' find biological functions every time you look at the cell. What do you find? Rocks? quote:Meaning is objective if you use a well defined syntax. A car in English means a car. A tree means a tree. It's not subjective. quote:That's becasue they interpreted it that way without actually being so in reality. But a car is designed and it's a car, regardless of someones interpretation. It's objectively a car. quote:Yes, and it does it objectively, not subjectively. Therefore it's real and quantifiable. quote:No, it has meaning. It's specification is meaning. The portion of DNA that does specify the sequence of amino acids for hemoglobin is it's meaning. And we can quantify that. quote:Not always, actually, almost never, but never mind benecitial mutations now. The point is that natural selection selects for fitness which is not correlated with biological functions. Just becasue an organims has increased fitness compared to others it doesn't mean it got new biological functions. And if that is so, natural selection has no knowledge about new biological functions and it doesn't select for them. It selects for fitness. That is why it is as good as blind chance at evolving new biological functions.
quote:You do know what epigenetics are right? quote:But this has nothing to do with evolving new information. It only has with expressing a certain genotype and selecting it and increasing it's presence in the population. Genes for both fur color were already present in the population. They just weren't expressed. quote:Acutally everything is shown right away for me. No clicking needed. quote:Very simple, you take the amount of the DNA needed for a specific function, and and you calculate it's probability. If that sequence has less probability than 10^120 (or 10^150 in this book) than that's CSI. Becasue DNA has specification for proteins, it has meaning. Therefore you have quantified the amount of meaning also. quote:But evolution does not get the information about new biological functions, only about the fitness of organisms which are not correlated to functions. quote:Not enough to quantify with CSI. But as Dembski calculated, the flagellum has the probabillity of 1:10^2954. So now you convert that to bits and you get the CSI of the flagellum. quote:That's waht I'm doing all day long. quote:Yes I do. quote:Actually, if you are going to measure the rpobability of something arising by chance, you obviously need to use probabilities and statistics. quote:I've already explained that this is increase in Shannon Information (SI), which can not be used to describe biological functions. quote:I equated D with new biological function, not a new mutation. In that case, yes mutations do arise, they have been observed. quote:Pretty much...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are arguing that biology always results in a loss of information because of a belief in "The Fall" or whatever you want to call it.
Sorry, that's nonsense. There is/was no such thing. Its a tribal myth. But because you "fell" for it, you keep trying to shoehorn scientific data into your fantasy world view, twisting it around as needed. But no matter how much you twist and distort it, the data doesn't fit, as posters have been pointing out to you for much of this thread. You perhaps are a classic example of Heinlein's statement, below, or my tagline: Belief gets in the way of learning. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
This is not an argument, this is slander. It is statements like this that make it hard to take you seriously and reaffirms that you are just a troll.This cannot be slander. It is impossible to slander someone on an internet forum. One could libel them. Slander - Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc. Now it would be possible to commit libel on an internet forum.
Libel - defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. Now what part of the statement defamed them? What part is injurious?
quote: Seems this is all provable. Can you show they have research and a mathematical foundation to their ideas? Or do you take personal offense, because someone refuted your argument You make lots of claims. The claim of slander jsut shows the type of person we are dealing with Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I'm not a Christian, now go away. You are going off topic. Go and discuss religion somewhere else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:I'm not a Christian, now go away. You are going off topic. Go and discuss religion somewhere else. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:A person who simply dismisses other people's work becouse he does not agree with them, and becasue other people disagree with that person, is making a logicaly fallacy. Call it what you will but it's just plain wrong. quote:It's not they, it's him. Werener Gitt is one person. Refuted how? By saying that they don't agree with it? The foundations of Gitt's research are in Shannon, Chaitin, etc... His further research is general and not strictly mathematical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I'm all for it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Well it seems people think Gitt has Shannon all wrong.
quote: quote: quote:Sounds like Gitt likes to use fancy words but doesnt really know what they mean. Source So is he being "slandered" here too? Seems like the writer is pointing out glaring problems with Gitt's work
It's not they, it's him. Werener Gitt is one person. The reason for the misunderstanding is your inability to cut and paste.
Percy writes: I know that Spetner and Gitt claim that meaning is part of information theory, but their ideas have not had any influence at all within science. Their only audience is creationists. Their ideas are not underpinned by research and do not have any mathematical foundation. what you posted as being said by Percy
I know that Werner and Gitt claim that meaning is part of information theory, but their ideas have not had any influence at all within science. Their only audience is creationists. Their ideas are not underpinned by research and do not have any mathematical foundation. Hmm, so maybe you should realize that you are the one that f'd up. As for Spetner read this from the preface of his book Not by Chance. Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution(New York: The Judaica Press, 1998).
quote: Totally driven by religious motives.Do you know what happens to fighter pilots when they rely on intuition? They die. As for his information theories.
quote:Source Author of the review is Mark Perakh professor emeritus of Mathematics and statistical mechanics at California State University, Fullerton in Fullerton, California. Try this one toohttp://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm I highly suggest you read these reviews. You might find what other scientists have to say about these two quite interesting. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:What exactly did Gitt contradict in Shannon's paper? quote:Spetner is motivated by religious views? Okay, so what? What is your point? Is he quoting Bible to prove his point? quote:The only problem is that this doesn't happen. We have observed structures deteriorate, but we did not observe them become more suited for other substances. Therefore we did observe loos, but not gain in information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
IS this a real argument? Apparently not since you don't seem to be making any sense. I talk about billions of generations of bacteria and you convert that into billions of years. How else are we to understand this unless you think bacteria have generation times close to a year, as opposed to the 20 minutes something like E.coli actually has.
I know it isn't but it lost something. Did it? the amino acid changed, how do you know that this lead to a loss of information since there is no change in function to tie it to? Aren't you the one propounding Abel and Trevors idea of 'functional information'? If this mutation doesn't change the gyrase's function why should it be a loss of information?
That is loss of information. The deterioration of it's structure is the loss of information. If this continues that it can stop doing it's job altogether, and than the organism dies since there is nothing to coil the DNA. You are making a nonsense of the whole CSI argument. There is no deterioration of its structure, you can show absolutely no change in the functionality of the gyrase. It makes no sense to say,'yes but if I change all of the amino acids the protein will cease to function' as that says nothing to what this particular amino acid change does.
But it's structure is damaged. Therefore it lost information. It's obviously not a fatal loss, but it is a loss non the less. How is the structure damaged? Change need not equal damage, either at the nucleotide or amino acid level.
Obviously not. Then what function do you think this amino acid was specified for?
It has never been observed, nor has matter been seen to have properties that are known to produce information You presumably mean CSI here or 'functional information' since information streams into us from the universe all the time from a countless number of material entities. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes: Yes, now it contains everything it needs to be new information. But the problem is, this does not happen by the influence of matter itself in real life. I suppose you must have overlooked a good few publications that describe, in detail, just this kind of mutation. Gene duplication is a very common occurrence in nature, it's been observed in genomes that have been sequenced. These genomes have been found to be riddled with duplicated genes, sometimes even multiple versions of the same original, which were subsequently altered by yet more mutations, making the original and the copy (or copies) diverge. It definitely happens, and you can read about in the literature. Your denial of it is as ridiculous as denying that the moon exists.
Mutations either modify the genome to have a different expression of genes, with the same informational content, or they deteriorate it. There are no adding of information. And the selection can't help you because of the NFL theorem. I don't know which textbooks were used to teach you, but they can't have been about biology, that much is clear.
{...} do you understand that this does not happen in real life, because evolution does not know what it is supposed to pick? And if it doesn't it's going to select what has the best fitness on average. But fitness is not corelated with new information, so it's useless. Evolution isn't "supposed" to pick anything. It simply happens that the fittest have a better chance to procreate than the less fit. Anything that gets you among the fittest will better your chances, and new information is no exception to the rule. For example, if all your siblings can only digest leaves of one type, and you develop a mutation that enables you to digest leaves of another type, which would constitute new information in your genome, then you stand a good chance of doing better in life than your siblings. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Theodoric,
We both get a kick in the pants this time. It suddenly struck me last night while doing a little nighttime reading (about Dembski and CSI, ironically) that I'd said "Werner" when I meant "Spetner". I immediately corrected the two posts where I'd referred to "Spetner" as "Werner". Evidently SO responded before I corrected, so he didn't screw up his cut-n-paste. There are timestamps on the messages and the edits that should confirm this. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024