|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited) | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes:
quote: Incorrect. Because it only works when the two genes are present at the same time. Since one is a duplication and subsequent mutation of another gene, this means that they didn't have it all along. It was only after a gene was duplicated and mutated that the new information came along. Which has more information: A or AA?Which has more information: A or B? Which has more information: A or AB? quote: But the genetic clock shows that it did evolve.
quote: In and of itself, yes. But to think that it is only "similarity" that is the basis for the conclusion of duplication and mutation, then you really don't know anything about genetics.
quote: Incorrect. First, it wasn't there. Then, a gene was duplicated. Then, the gene mutated. Thus, new information appeared. Which has more information: A or AA?Which has more information: A or B? Which has more information: A or AB? quote: Incorrect, because there are two enzymes where there used to be only one. Which has more information: A or AA?Which has more information: A or B? Which has more information: A or AB? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
information - 2. the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects. That seems to be a pretty good definition, not useful for quantification perhaps but certainly consonant with Percy's example of new alleles representing new information, i.e. a novel alternative sequence that produces a novel specific effect.
Information in the second definition would not necessarily require a concious recipient. It can refer to a sequence of characters that produce a specific effect. Software contains information but the computer that reads it is obviously not conscious.
The main question as far as ID goes is whether a conscious originator is required. If you read up about Smooth Operator's Gitt information, you will see that a key assumption of Gitt's concept of information is such that it requires a will and a mental source. Such a definition clearly excludes any conception of information as not having an intelligent source and therefore makes axiomatic what ID is still trying to show, that the information in genomes requires an intelligent source. I'm glad if you reject this approach. The evolutionary conception is that the ordered 'functional' information in the genome is the result of the interaction between the randomly generated variation in genomes, caused by mutation, and the organisms environment leading to differential reproductive success based on the phenotypic variation this genetic variation produces. In other words mutation is changing the information, including increasing it, but it is natural selection that is leading to the persistence of 'specified' functional information, and over time to 'complex specified information'. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:This is a correction I would like to make. CSI does not take into account semantic information. But it does not exclude it either. quote:You could that say that their color is also information about them. Clearly you could pick anything about those rocks and call it information. But the point is that for a number "3" to be recognized as "three" we need an agreement. This agreement is the syntax. Rocks by themself do not produce syntax. quote:He is talking about what information is in general. There is nobody who does not accept his view and has any understanding about information. That doesn't mean that his model is supposed to remove Shannon's model. Only those who thing that Gitt is trying to remove Shannon's model think that. quote:You misunderstood what Gitt did. He didn't actually build a new model froms cratch. He just used various well known aspects of information and explained them. He gave them context. He is talking about what information is in general. quote:He isn't suppoesd to quantify it. We know from observations that matter by itself has no teleology, and we never saw matter by itself create any meaning. Therefore he concluded that matter can't create inforamtion. This is called an inference to the best explanation. quote:As you saw, I made a correction to what CSI is. Dembski said he is not using the semantic aspect while calculationg CSI. But that doesn't mean that semantics are lacking. What the specific protein represent is it's semantic part. quote:Like I said, yes, in theory. But not in real life. Deleterious mutations keep accumulating is spite of natural selection. quote:What he said is that if we had such a society we would be safe from such mutations, but we are not. Even in drosophila, mutations are accumulationg, and drosophila have no advanced technology. quote:They are not neutral, they are slighty neutral. Big difference. It means that they are slightly deleterious, but are not removed by natural selection. And yes, they are accumulating. Yes, slightly, but given enough time, they will cause a mutational meltdown. And that is the extinction of a population. quote:You keep missing the point. Imagine that you had 10 cars. All were the same. You removed a part on 5 of your cars that made it go only under 200 km/h. Without this blockage, it can go up to 250 km/h. And you decided to test all cars and select only those that go over 200 km/h. It is obvious that you will end up with only 5 cars, because of their increase in fitness. But they will not be having any new functions. Becasue they fitness in speed was not correlated with new parts. The same thing would be if you modified a device in your car to give the motor of your car more gas than usual. That would make it go faster. And now you perform the same selection as before, and tell me, in what time is this process going to give your car a rocket engine? Never obviously. Becasue giving your car's engine more gas through a modified pipe, and increasing it's fitnes, is not correlated with building a new part, like a rocked engine. Or consider this example: Imagine that you had a lot of blocks with letters. And you had all the letters from A to Z + the space character. Not only that but you had 100 blocks for each character. Now imagine that all the blocks were red. The characters on the blocks have a tint of white. The tint ranging in steps of 1 and it's going from 0 to 100. The amount of "0" tint meaning you can't actually see the letter since there is no tint of white, the whole block is red. And the amount of "100" means the letter is fully white, and you can read it with no problem. Now, imagine that you tried to make a sentence with those blocks. You are to pick randomly letters from that bunch of blocks. Now, you decide that since you can't really read anything below the tint of "10" you will remove those blocks, and not put them in your sentence. This is the selection part of your process. Now my question is, what kind of sentence will you get? Will it look something like this: "LOIS, BRING ME ANOTHER BEER".Or something likE this: "EDJD FJUDUDDDD DEPM FUDEJF ZE E". I think that it is obvious that it will look like the lower one. Why is that? It's obivous. Even though you used an evolutionary algorithm, you still wound up with a meaningless sentence. That is becasue the tint of the color on the block was not correlated with any meaninglful sentence. It had no correlation with new sentences. Yes, you removed the bad blcks under the tint of 10, that you could not read, but your selection was not going toward any meaningful text. The same thin applies to biological evolution. Mutations are random. Some mutations will optimize the function a bit more, some will degrade it. Those that degrade it, will be selected out. Those that make the function work more optimally, will get selected form. But this will not get you any new biological functions, because natural selection is not celecting for them. And fitness is not correlated with new biological functions in this way.
quote:No, it doesn't. It increases fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But I never said that ALL mutations are loss of information. Is switching your light swithc to OFF a loss of information? No, it's not. It's tuning it to a position you want. If you want to turn of the lights you could also cut the wires from the switch and get the same result. Only this time this would be a reduction in information. quote:Most of them are deleterious. But not all of them. The amount of information stays the same if the structure was not damaged. quote:Again, biological functions are calculated by CSI. quote:You improved your house. You didn't try to do all thet work by throwing rocks, now did you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But we can't. Human genome is degrading, together with all other living genomes. quote:I meant new CSI. Not Shannon information. quote:Who says we can? We can't. Not all information is gone. Is their whole genome destroyed? Obviously not. quote:A mutation that has no effect at all would be neutral. quote:Yes they did. They lost's the ability they had. quote:No, it is a modifed version of a previous gene. Modified by transposons. quote:What are you talking about? quote:Only in Shannon's model, not in CSI. And you can't use Shannon's model since it only uses statistical approach to information. quote:Because to gain CSI you need 400 bits. Second, Frame shifts are modifications in already existing information. They are either fine-tuning or deleterious changes. quote:I used it becasue it explains what information is in general. quote:Becasue it explains how to define information in telecommunications. quote:Do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:How do you know? quote:How do you know? quote:Because it is. It's explaining what information is in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:There is no information. They had the first version of the gene. quote:Genetic clocks are based on an assumption that the organism actually did evolve. They are wrong. quote:Molecular clocks do not correlate with fossil records. quote:What else is used as evidence? quote:Again, it's not new CSI. quote:So what? The new enzyome doesn't perform a new function. http://www.thedesignoflife.net/...ce-a-day/View/Default.aspx
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Hi Smooth Operator,
Because I'm a participant in this thread I will not be playing the role of moderator. I believe Relativity is wrong... is the only thread I'm moderating in which you're currently a participant. I'm posting this in my moderator role solely to remind you that continued posting of messages that consist of a series of one line responses will pretty much guarantee permanent suspension by Saturday morning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How do you know? How do you know? Because I've read Gitt's nonsense.
Because it is. It's explaining what information is in general. Look, information theory is a field of mathematics. A creationist lying about information is not doing information theory any more than a creationist lying about triangles is doing Euclidian geometry. OK? If Werner Gitt tried to redefine a triangle as a shape with four curved sides, he wouldn't be doing geometry, he wouldn't be improving geometry, he wouldn't have made a discovery in geometry --- he'd just be twisting words for the purposes of talking crap --- and if he pretended that what he was doing was geometry, that would be the biggest load of crap of all. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Fine. Explain what exactly did you not like about it. quote:I know it is. I never said it wasn't. Gitt wasn't making any new model of information. He was taking all the existing concepts of information, and explaining how they work in general. quote:Where exactly did Gitt lie? quote:That's true. But he wasn't doing that, now was he? If you think he was, than explain how.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Human genome is degrading, together with all other living genomes.
But you have provided no evidence to show that this is the case. Repeated claims do not constitute evidence and... (well, see tagline). And those folks who are most familiar with the scientific evidence on this issue (biologists) don't agree with you by an overwhelming number. Curious: only biblical literalists follow and promote your "degrading" argument. You may try to claim that you are pursuing science, but when 99.9% of scientists disagree with you that is a specious claim. If you really, really are pursuing science you are so far out on the fringe you couldn't see the mainstream with the Hubble. But I still think you are pushing religion, adhering to the bible as accurate on this point in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. (A related question: for how long has the human genome been degrading? And what is the position of Homo ergaster and H. neanderthalis in relation to either the global flood or the tower of Babel incident? Do you see them as products of "devolution" after a perfect creation represented by Adam and Eve?) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Fine. Explain what exactly did you not like about it. He's pretending that he's doing "information theory", which he isn't. Instead, he's just writing down a bunch of dumb creationist daydreams and calling them "information theory". I might as well write:
Theorems of information theory: Theorem 1: All the information in DNA was produced by evolution.Theorem 2: Everything creationists say about information is rubbish. Theorem 3: I win. In fact, this would be better than Gitt's maunderings, because it would have the benefit of being true. But it still wouldn't be "information theory".
I know it is. I never said it wasn't. Gitt wasn't making any new model of information. He was taking all the existing concepts of information, and explaining how they work in general. No. In particular, his concept of information is entirely opposed to Shannon's.
Where exactly did Gitt lie? For one thing, he's pretending that what he's doing is "information theory". For another thing, he claims to have proved the creationist nonsense he's reciting.
That's true. But he wasn't doing that, now was he? If you think he was, than explain how. He's redefining "information" in order to bullshit people such as yourself. But, as I have written elsewhere:
By analogy, if Mr Gitt was a devout believer in the Norse gods, he might redefine "lightning" as "the effect produced when the thunder-god Thor swings his magic hammer Mjllnir". But this definition does not answer any substantive question about lightning: it would merely raise the question of whether there is any such thing as "lightning" in Mr Gitt's sense of the word. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I did, several times. Read this. EvC Forum: Message Peek
quote:Who doesn't agree with me? Show me those biologists that do not agree with me. quote:I don't care what you think! Are you stupid or something? And no, I'm not insulting you, I'm just honestly asking if you are a stupid person, and you have trouble understanding written words. Becasue you keep talking about religion and I keep talking about science. And I also keep telling you I'm not interested in religion. I don't give a damn if you belive me or not. Maybe you're a satanist? Are you? Are you working for Satan? Are you rpomoting evolution because you worship Satan? How do I know you're not? Prove to me you're not worshiping Satan! Do you see how stupid this sounds? Well that's how you sound for the past month.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:You are acting stupid. I asked you to tell me what exactly did you consider wrong with Gitt's work. Answer my question. quote:In which part? Explain why. quote:Explain why he is not "doing" information theory. Cite me where he said that the proved anything. quote:How is he redefining information? Explain in detail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
This topic is past 300 messages and out of contact with the topic theme.
It is NOT an information theory topic. Going to close down, probably in the next 1/2 hour. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150 |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024