Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Role of Mutations
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 62 (326513)
06-26-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 10:22 AM


quote:
The scientific journals you are talking about that you would use as referance have the same foundation you do. A faith in evolution.
Actually, if you read the scientific journals you will see that they present actual evidence for their theories and hypotheses. That is the opposite of faith.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:22 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 62 (328692)
07-03-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 10:03 AM


Of cource I believe in natural selection and variation.
natural selection + variation = evolution.
What I am saying is even with mutations every species produces more of its own kind.
as far as i am aware, i am the only person on this board to have even attempted a (biblical) definition of the word "kind" that is in concordance with biological heirarchies. proposing a strict limit for something based on a vague definition is a no-no.
For example have you ever heard of a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog? Or a cat anything other than a cat?
*groan* this is an old one.
no, and for something like that to happen to would disprove evolution. what evolution predicts is that each generation of dog varies in the frequency of certain heritable trait, and that some point (usually determined by reproductive isolation) we arbitrarily choose to call one generation something other than "dog."
yes, it really is arbitrary.
Over the last several thousand years we should have at least seen one instance where one species gave rise to another.
we've seen many. in lab conditions, no less. denying they exist does not mean they don't.
And as far as variation is concerned "purebred" animals hgave much less variation than their ancestors. Take dogs for example. Purebred dogs are prone to so many different problems from bones to organs. And purebreds only produce purebreds.
ah, this one's actually my favourite.
here is a post where i demonstrate artificial selection and evolution in action, within a particular variety of one species of cat, persian blues, over the last 100 or so years. keep your eye on the snout length.
shorter snouts are favored by judges, so shorter snouted cats are more likely to be bred. this leads to a gradually shortening of the average snout length in persian cats. this sort of change can be affected on just about any part of the body -- and once the change is great enough, we arbitrarily call this cat something besides "a persian blue cat."
purebred dogs, btw, are prone to problems because they are inbred. which is bad for anything. the persian cats above are prone to tear duct problems (ie: they can't stop crying, they get infected, etc) because we have designed them that way, overriding natural selection.
And your belief that I do not believe in science is rediculous and unfounded. As a verterinarian to be I deal with science everyday and the complexity demands intelligence not random chance.
have fun in bio class.
The Bible does not allow for millions of years. It does not work. You must use irrational reasoning (an oxymoron?) to place anything other than a 6 day creation in there.
yes, i agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 10:03 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by MangyTiger, posted 07-04-2006 5:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 48 of 62 (328817)
07-04-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
07-03-2006 9:16 PM


purebred dogs, btw, are prone to problems because they are inbred. which is bad for anything. the persian cats above are prone to tear duct problems (ie: they can't stop crying, they get infected, etc) because we have designed them that way, overriding natural selection.
This might just be a variation on what you're saying but I think that many of the problems purebred dogs have aren't due to inbreeding per se, they are because the Breed Standards specify a 'look' which is based more on a Victorian or Edwardian fashion statement than any consideration of the physical well-being of the animal. I think it was schraf who pointed out a while ago that all Bulldogs have to be born by C-section because following the Breed Standard for large heads has led to the point where the puppies can't fit down the birth canal.
So in the case of pedigree dogs it isn't that they are inbred but that the inbreeding had been deliberately directed towards an end that causes unwanted problems as a side-effect (your we have designed them that way).

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 07-03-2006 9:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2006 4:35 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 62 (328823)
07-04-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 12:23 AM


oh. my.
It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.
Nothing in the real world is mathematically impossible.
Nothing.
And it is obvious to me that anyone making this argument cannot see the logical error in their thinking.
In order to support evolution these mutations need to add information to genes. These mutations do not.
Why? How do you measure it? What does the "information" do? You are obviously familiar enough with these mutations and genes (seeing as YOU make the above statement) that you know precisely what information was lost, what it was, and where it was located: give one example.
It appears to me that you are just taking buzz phrases from creatortionistas (which, by the Dover Decision now includes IDists), and regurgitating it without any real thought on your part.
Creatortionista, btw, is defined as someone who intentionally misrepresents the truth of what they are saying to fool the gullible and those ignorant of the truth in support of creationist dogma. The measure of this is that creatortionista websites will continue to post erroneous and false information even after it has been pointed out that the information is erroneous and false.
Message 40
Of cource I believe in natural selection and variation. I'd be a fool not to. What I am saying is even with mutations every species produces more of its own kind. For example have you ever heard of a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog?
Every species is a daughter of the parent species, no matter how distant those parent species happen to be.
Variation and natural selection are enough to cause speciation events -- this has been observed. The other thing that should be fairly obvious to those not logically impaired is that speciation involves new "information" of some kind -- something has been "added" that make a difference in the populations {old species} and {new species} and thus speciation falsifies the concept of "no new information" in a way that creationists cannot honestly deny.
All hominids are apes the same way all dogs are dogs (although all you are talking about is varieties there not species differentiations, so of course they are going to be dogs -- but lets look at the full concept applied to biology eh?).
Just as all chimpanzees are apes (and all gorillas and all orangutans and all bonobos etc).
But before we were apes our common ancestors were primates, and we are still primates, the same way all apes are primates and the same way all monkeys are primates.
Before we were primates our common ancestors were mammals, and we are all still mammals, the same way all apes are mammals and all primates are mammals, and the same way all mammalian species alive and extinct are still mammals.
All that has happened since each of these divisions is descent from a common ancestral population, with variation and natural selection.
If a dog gave birth to something not{dog} that would NOT be evolution -- that would be a typical creatortionista strawman monster.
Message 25
If the voice box evolved using mutations would it not be reasonable to say that some humans would not have them? Just wondering why all humans have 'em?
Because all humans evolved from the hominid population group that had voiceboxes, it became 'fixed' in the population that survived (natural selection).
In fact the use of mutations in evolution is unfounded because there has not yet been one positive mutation in the history of studying mutations. If you disagree try finding one. If you do come up with one I know exactly which one it will be. And it comes with a nasty side effect, so it doesnt really count as a positive mutation.
There is no such thing as a "positive" mutation. This is a human value judgement, and a creatortionista strawman, when in fact evolution could care less what humans value or even think - it has been happening for 3.5 billion years without benefit of human thought.
"Beneficial" still has some 'good' connotations of human valuation, but these need to be ignored. It is the term commonly used where having the mutation benefits the organism relative to its surviving or reproducing.
All mutations come with a {cost\benefit} analysis - it is called natural selection:
  • Those that {survive} or {reproduce better} with the mutation than those without, benefit from having it,
  • Those that {do not survive} or {reproduce worse} with the mutation than those without, pay a cost for having it,
  • Those for whom the mutation neither affects their {survial} or {reproductive success} compared to those without have a neutral {cost\benefit}
While the effect of beneficial and costly mutations can be readily observed in populations by direct effect, the {cost\benefit} of neutral mutations cannot be so observed.
Notice that all {potentially beneficial} and {potentially costly} mutations that are not immediately tested by natural selection are by definition neutral.
Later changes to the environment or other species (competitions) can make having the neutral mutation beneficial or costly, in which case whole populations are likely to be affected as the neutral mutation has more opportunity to spread in an otherwise static population.
Neutral mutations also add diversity that can be a base for further mutations ... beneficial, costly or neutral ...
Message 34
Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code.
As for the probability its all done up already.
Changes to the genetic code are variations in the genetic code -- they are different, that is variation.
Probability has been "all done up already" I agree -- it has been shown to be a false argument based on false assumptions and lack of information and has been demonstrated to be irrelevant to reality.
See {the old improbable probability problem} thread.
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
Of course feel free to point out the logical and mathematical errors on that thread if you can.
These are bare links and area violation of the forum rules. They are also laughable as evidence: answers in genesis is just wrong on many things, which have been pointed out (these are also called PRATTS). They are one of the "better" creatortionista and their "arguments we think creationists should not use" should be required reading for any creationist -- they are so bad and the evidence against them is so strong that they cannot be argued even by AiG.
Message 37
I permanently change my statement "Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code." to "Mutations are not variation. They are permanent changes in the genetic code." i.e. they cant be reversed.
What prevents a future mutation from changing it back? What prevents sexual reproduction from not passing it on? What you have here is another logical fallacy.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added response to message 25, 34, 37, 40
Edited by RAZD, : typos, formating

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 12:23 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Scrutinizer, posted 07-07-2006 2:39 AM RAZD has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 62 (329024)
07-05-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by MangyTiger
07-04-2006 5:06 PM


This might just be a variation on what you're saying but I think that many of the problems purebred dogs have aren't due to inbreeding per se, they are because the Breed Standards specify a 'look' which is based more on a Victorian or Edwardian fashion statement than any consideration of the physical well-being of the animal. I think it was schraf who pointed out a while ago that all Bulldogs have to be born by C-section because following the Breed Standard for large heads has led to the point where the puppies can't fit down the birth canal.
yes, something of a variation of what i said. i should phrased more clearly. natural selection is usually done on the basis of functionality. does this feature work better than other features? artificial selection tends to be done more on visual style than function -- leading to cats with faces so flat their tear ducts no longer are able to shut off, or dogs that have to be born by c-section.
granted, in natural selection, sexual factors are also prevalent, but they seem to take a backseat to functionality. i can't think of any cases were something counter-functional (such as the examples above) have evolved in the wild.
So in the case of pedigree dogs it isn't that they are inbred but that the inbreeding had been deliberately directed towards an end that causes unwanted problems as a side-effect (your we have designed them that way).
inbreeding is also a factor in some cases, but not with every dog of course. it depends on the dog's pedigree. it's not saying that "all purebred dogs have this problem or that problem" but it does happen more easily with purbred dogs -- just like human royalty!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by MangyTiger, posted 07-04-2006 5:06 PM MangyTiger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-05-2006 5:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 51 of 62 (329034)
07-05-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
07-05-2006 4:35 PM


i can't think of any cases were something counter-functional (such as the examples above) have evolved in the wild.
Some sexual ornamentations would probably qualify as counter-functional. It doesn't seem very functional to carry around a (literal) assload of feathers twenty times the size of your body, or be nice and brightly colored to stand out to predators as well as potential mates. Not sure if these qualify as "counter-functional", but they don't seem to be very "practical" except for sexiness purposes...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 07-05-2006 4:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 4:31 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 62 (329435)
07-06-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by pink sasquatch
07-05-2006 5:05 PM


yes, i suppose that's a good point.
the question is, does it ever cross the line between impractical and destroying certain functions of the animal? the only reason i'd think not is natural selection. sitting around and looking pretty is all well and good, but the ones that get eaten don't breed.
like dawkins points out, though, natural selection isn't exactly "survival of the fittest," more like survival of whatever can get by. predators only take off the very bottom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-05-2006 5:05 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 5:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 53 of 62 (329456)
07-06-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
07-06-2006 4:31 PM


function
the question is, does it ever cross the line between impractical and destroying certain functions of the animal?
I know what your getting at, and I'm trying to think of an example...
But animal "function" is a bit vague, too. It seems to me that there are many species with female mate choice where the males have given up the "function" of camoflaging pigmentation patterns in favor of insanely bright colors. (The females by comparison are drab, retaining the camoflage "function" that the males have lost).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 4:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 5:48 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 62 (329459)
07-06-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by pink sasquatch
07-06-2006 5:39 PM


Re: function
I know what your getting at, and I'm trying to think of an example...
yeah. i'm trying not to sound like an IDiot here with the usage of "function." what i mean is, basically that, i think, sexual selection is balanced with natural selection in the wild, and there is a certain line that sexual selection cannot cross because natural selection will prevent it.
i may be totally wrong here, of course. i'm not a biologist by any means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 5:39 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Scrutinizer
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 62 (329506)
07-07-2006 12:28 AM


We Need to Define Our Terms
arachnophilia writes:
In order to support evolution these mutations need to add information to genes.
nonsense. this whole "information" thing is creationist mumbo-jumbo. "mutation" need only be variation.
It seems to me that there is a huge confusion here on the meanings of "evolution" and "information," very common in creation-evolution debates.
PetVet2Be, I agree with your general argument, but I believe that you need to make sure those with whom you are debating know exactly what you mean by what you say.
First of all, "evolution" has many meanings often used in debates, including
  1. change
  2. variation in allele frequencies within a population (or populations) over time (a favorite among evolutionists)
  3. speciation
  4. the entire "evolutionist worldview" (basically derived out of necessity from atheism): the big bang, followed by a naturalistic formation of the solar system and earth, abiogenesis, and finally the branching out of all species from a common ancestor
  5. natural selection
  6. a naturalistic increase in genetic information in a population over a number of generations, driven by mutations and only harnessed by natural selection
  7. natural selection + mutation
  8. "molecules to man" (i.e., chemical evolution followed by constant increase in genetic information to produce all of life's present diversity) (a favorite among creationists)
There is no real controversy over whether 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 actually occur; creationists just believe that they in no way contradict creation and may even support it. Unfortunately, many evolutionists often demonstrate that speciation, natural selection, and beneficial mutations occur and claim that this strongly supports evolution.
The fourth and last are far too general for any one argument. Whenever a creationist uses either, he is often harangued by the evolutionist, and the argument quickly turns into "Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis; it only deals with what happened after the first life." (PetVet2Be, I noticed that most of the AiG articles you cited dealt almost exclusively with abiogenesis and not with the topic of this thread, mutations. For the sake of peace and staying on-topic, it is probably best to assume that evolution and abiogenesis have nothing to do with each other (although I personally disagree with this). Try to deal with them as separate issues in separate threads.)
The sixth definition, then, is probably the most relevant to the debate. (We should probably use "de-evolution" or something of the like to describe losses in genetic information.) Now we just need to define information.
When creationists speak of increases in genetic information, they usually think of new genes and alleles and even chromosomes coming into existence where they did not exist before. This simply cannot happen by chance mutations, the only known potential physical mechanism for altering the genetic code, and has never been observed to occur.
Creationists generally argue over Gitt information, or something like it, while evolutionists seem to prefer Shannon. We need to agree on which one we are debating.
Obviously Shannon information can arise by chance, since his definition had nothing to do with the meaning of the information, just its transmission. (According to Shannon, random sequences supposedly have higher information content than English sentences.)
Therefore, we need to focus the debate on the Gitt type of information in DNA. (And yes, we do find Gitt information in DNA. The “statistics” is the four different nucleotides; the “syntax” includes the triplet codon system and that fact that every protein-encoding gene begins with the start codon and ends with a stop codon; the “explicit” meaning of the nucleotide arrangements is the order of amino acids in the interpreted alpha helix; and the “implicit” meanings of the DNA include structure and function of the folded protein, instructions for embryonic development, instincts, etc.)
arachnophilia writes:
nonsense. this whole "information" thing is creationist mumbo-jumbo. "mutation" need only be variation.
I must disagree. Somehow, each allele of every one of the millions of genes among all the millions of species had to come into existence at some time in the past. For evolution to be plausible, it must be able to explain how all this genetic information came to be; thus it requires that mutations have the potential to increase information and that this has happened frequently in the past.
Unfortunately, like I said, no one has ever observed a naturalistic increase in the kind of genetic information to which creationists are referring.

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 07-07-2006 1:25 AM Scrutinizer has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 56 of 62 (329507)
07-07-2006 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Scrutinizer
07-07-2006 12:28 AM


Re: We Need to Define Our Terms
Who says that evolution involves an increase of 'genetic information' over time. It COULD be a reduction. It could be just a change.
The thing is.. how do you 'measure' information. What is the definition of 'information' when it comes to evolution? HOw do you define 'information'? Which organism has more 'information' in it? THe ameoba or man? How can you tell?
the 'Information' claim is being pushed by the discovery insitute, to be sure. However, they have put forth no way to measure it, define it, or detect it against random noise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Scrutinizer, posted 07-07-2006 12:28 AM Scrutinizer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Scrutinizer, posted 07-07-2006 3:25 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Scrutinizer
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 62 (329510)
07-07-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
07-04-2006 5:24 PM


Re: oh. my.
RAZD writes:
Variation and natural selection are enough to cause speciation events -- this has been observed.
I think I can pretty much agree with this statement.
RAZD writes:
The other thing that should be fairly obvious to those not logically impaired is that speciation involves new "information" of some kind -- something has been "added" that make a difference in the populations {old species} and {new species} and thus speciation falsifies the concept of "no new information" in a way that creationists cannot honestly deny.
Actually, speciation can occur without any new information at all, at least using today's definition of species as being distinct populations that for any reason do not breed with members of another species.
For example, consider two populations of the same species that become geographically isolated. Because of different climates, their gene pools would shrink as natural selection eliminated different unfavorable alleles in either population, causing noticeable differences in behavior patterns and appearances between the two. They may then be considered different species even though they are still compatible enough to produce fertile offspring.
Lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring, as can dolphins and killer whales. The animals in each pair are considered separate species despite this fact, simply because they do not normally breed. Speciation in these cases likely occurred due to specialization (i.e., loss of potential for certain characteristics such as a mane or stripes through loss of alleles).
Of course, speciation has been observed where there is an "increase" in information: polyploidization in plants. However, in these cases, there has been no new information, only duplication of information already present. It only requires incomplete mitosis. The ability for some plants to change ploidy, and thus speciate, is merely a useful adaptive mechanism.
In every case with which I am familiar, speciation has occured through loss of function of a gene or genes, loss of alleles, or duplication of some kind. What instances do you know where new information was added by mutation or natural selection?
RAZD writes:
If a dog gave birth to something not{dog} that would NOT be evolution -- that would be a typical creatortionista strawman monster.
Let's assume that a dog evolved into a new species over, say, 100,000 generations. At what point in this evolution does the dog cease to be a dog?
Of course, it would be expected, according to evolution, that the dog would not evolve into the new species in one generation. But somewhere along the way it can no longer be considered a dog. If it were partly dog and partly the new species, wouldn't that then mean it was no longer a dog, by definition? Just something to consider.
RAZD writes:
They are also laughable as evidence: answers in genesis is just wrong on many things, which have been pointed out (these are also called PRATTS).
I am curious to know on what things AiG is "just wrong"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2006 5:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 07-07-2006 3:04 AM Scrutinizer has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2006 11:37 AM Scrutinizer has not replied

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


Message 58 of 62 (329512)
07-07-2006 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Scrutinizer
07-07-2006 2:39 AM


Definition of information...
You were asked to give a definition of this word "information".
You are making statements about it which show that it is not any form of the word that a number here are familiar with. Until we know what it is no one can comment on your assertions.
You asked for examples of new information being added. For all definitions that I am aware of we have examples. However, you are clearly not using one of those definitions.
We'll have to have yours before we can continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Scrutinizer, posted 07-07-2006 2:39 AM Scrutinizer has not replied

  
Scrutinizer
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 62 (329513)
07-07-2006 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ramoss
07-07-2006 1:25 AM


Re: We Need to Define Our Terms
ramoss writes:
Who says that evolution involves an increase of 'genetic information' over time. It COULD be a reduction. It could be just a change.
Yes, by certain definitions, evolution can be just "horizontal" or "downward" change. But that is not the kind of evolution creationists are debating.
Somehow, all genes have come into existence. There is obviously more information in all these genes than there is in none. For evolution to be true, it has to explain the existence of all this information by natural processes. Simply saying that evolution can work downwards does not show how it has worked upwards in the past.
ramoss writes:
the 'Information' claim is being pushed by the discovery insitute, to be sure. However, they have put forth no way to measure it, define it, or detect it against random noise.
This is because information is determined almost entirely by the system that interprets it.
Which of the following sentences has more information?
  • "The moon is not made of cheese."
  • "The heavenly body which orbits the earth is not composed of bovine milk byproducts."
According to Shannon's theory of information, the second sentence contains around twice as much information as the first, since it only deals with the lowest level of information: statistics.
However, someone who can read and understand English will recognize that they contain about the same amount of information because they have the same meaning, or at least convey the same message. The only difference is that they are worded differently.
It is also important to note that according to classical information theory, the sentence contains the same amount of information regardless of the language that the reader understands. But in reality, to a person who knows only Chinese, the sentence has no information because he can understand none of the meaning (though he might be able to tell that the sentence was intelligently constructed ).
Semantics and higher levels of information are certainly difficult to measure and can probably never be measured in the same way as statistics. Information can be defined as an arrangement from a finite set of symbols (statistics) grouped and ordered according to certain conventional rules (syntax) which can be interpreted through accepted conventions to instruct or inform (semantics). Higher levels of information (pragmatics and apobetics) are implicit.
To detect information against random noise, you must know the conventions of the "language" first (syntactical structure, meaning, etc.).
Try to find the information hidden in the random noise:
892 hgd4509*&^#a;kj HK;LHJI pi h iuh PIUJ H ih jh h;j/,bjo;v j;/m/ kj lj?;ljcl /jkI hope this will make my point clear to you.npij9834 7@({?>!~i uhJPUHpkjnbp;KJHPV IAHPIHUFG; /;LKA;H;sghjH{OIJHga/.J POH!49875kjh78
Could you find it? Of course you could, but only because you can understand English. The information content in any code depends on the conventions of that code. This fact goes for chromosomes as well as spoken conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 07-07-2006 1:25 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 07-07-2006 4:53 AM Scrutinizer has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 60 of 62 (329517)
07-07-2006 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Scrutinizer
07-07-2006 3:25 AM


Re: We Need to Define Our Terms
Instead of these verbose outpourings why not just define gitt information for us in a manner in which it can then be calculated and actually used.
If Gitt information is not suitable for this, as you seem to be suggesting, then it is entirely unsuitable for any sort of scientific analysis of genetics.
One of Gitt's central assumptions, or 'theorems', that information must come from an intelligent source is itself highly suspect, unless every bit of information we derive about our world by direct examination is suddenly to redefined, as mere data perhaps.
Perhaps a new thread to discuss Gitt information would be a more suitable venue.
*ABE* I have opened a new thread The value of Gitt information to discuss this issue, your input would be very welcome and it would save us from derailing this thread with a detailed discussion of information.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Scrutinizer, posted 07-07-2006 3:25 AM Scrutinizer 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