Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 9:41 PM
70 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 68 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,821 Year: 18,644/29,783 Month: 589/2,043 Week: 141/386 Day: 44/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 226 of 458 (521372)
08-27-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Arphy
08-26-2009 6:02 AM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
arphy writes:

What the...???
All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy.

No, they weren't "dodgy", they only appear so when quote-mined and taken out of context.

You would rightly rile at someone just quoting you to say "I am not suggesting that natural selection didn't happen" and gleefully taking it to mean you endorse whole-heartedly evolution. Scientists (and those who take that side of the debate) get grumbly over legitimate questions (which have been answered) regarding accuracy of the method (fact is, camouflaged moths are eaten in the daytime less, ergo it was useful work, whether moths are normally perched there or not) being taken out of context to mean that the work was bogus or contraversial.

And yes, as I told WK, the chinese whispers analogy only goes so far. Drop it? No. Acknowledge where it doesn't stretch? sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Arphy, posted 08-26-2009 6:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 227 of 458 (521373)
08-27-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
08-25-2009 9:00 PM


Re: moth myth information -- getting it right
RAZD writes:

Hi again greyseal

:waves:

English, yes. It's coloUr, darn it all to heck!

Curiously, I didn't say it wasn't evolution, just that it was not an example of a mutation arising that shows a benefit -- the mutation was already extant in the population, and the melanic variety was known about well before hand.

ahha! but..but...er.. well yes. I noticed that afterwards. Kneejerk reaction, but you're right. Curse youuuuu!

(PS: everyone I don't say hi to - I love you all, I really do...I just don't want to fill posts with "hello, hi, how do you do")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2009 9:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 228 of 458 (521404)
08-27-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by greyseal
08-27-2009 6:41 AM


Re: What is information?
And just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean somebody else doesn't. Saying "godidit" because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so. One scientist with a will and the means can unlock this "machinery", a thousand ID apologists who don't want to know never will.

I guess you do understand it. If so, I would surely like to hear how an origin of life model factored in the arrangements of nucleotide sequences in DNA or RNA in order for the complex interacting proteins and coherent machinery of the first living and replicating cell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 6:41 AM greyseal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 AM traderdrew has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 229 of 458 (521407)
08-27-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by traderdrew
08-27-2009 11:28 AM


I guess you do understand it.

And as usual you are wrong.

He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 11:28 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 12:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3130 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 230 of 458 (521427)
08-27-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2009 11:35 AM


He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic".

I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why. There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea. This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion. The process shouldn't dumb down participants. The process should be an exporation and an excercise of intelligence and philosophy.

Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis is apparently more than just a hypothesis. Anyone who thinks the sequences in DNA are nothing more than Shannon information fails to explain how the precise functions and coherence within the cell formed without it.

Also, labeling me as a creationist is off the topic and an argument more from philosophy. I guess some people wish to define their opponents in certain ways in hopes to create certain impressions on others. The ID paradigm is distinct from creationism. It is sort of a hybrid between science and creationism but more toward science. It is a particular way of thinking and once you start to use the paradigm, the differences become obvious. See link below which helps discern the differences.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=752

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 11:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 1:27 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 239 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2009 7:53 AM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 242 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 8:57 AM traderdrew has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1619 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 231 of 458 (521438)
08-27-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by traderdrew
08-27-2009 12:23 PM


Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion.

I see. Tell me, how many times in the past three thousand years of scientific endeavour has the "intelligent designer" been found to be the cause behind a phenomenon?

Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 12:23 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 458 (521578)
08-28-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by greyseal
08-15-2009 12:44 PM


Re: What is information?
greyseal writes:

Once again, answer the question - what would you regard as adding information?

You've said that getting random chatter in a sentence, turning (for example) "have a nice day" into "have aalser niceslekjrs dayawer" isn't "adding information"...but it is. The fact that it's nonsense is of no interest. The fact is that's still not how genetics works.

I'll try to explain but I've got a suspicion that you're not going to understand.

I'll show you what I mean by adding information. I'll take my example of a piece of code:


void swap(object a, object b){
temp = new object();
temp = b;
b=a;
a=temp;}

Now I'll add some information:


void swap(object a, object b, object c){
temp = new object();
temp = c;
c=b;
b=a;
a=temp;}

It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance.

Your analogy with the Chinese whisper is just silly.

Creative forces in this universe are few and far between.

You guys still don't understand that data is NOT information. Information is datarised for transmission and noise is also data.

But noise is not information. Noise can be interpreted and statements (information) made about the noise but noise is the effect of entropy on information.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by greyseal, posted 08-15-2009 12:44 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 5:45 AM LucyTheApe has responded
 Message 234 by Arphy, posted 08-28-2009 6:01 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2009 6:17 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 08-28-2009 7:33 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 241 by greyseal, posted 08-28-2009 8:46 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1619 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 233 of 458 (521580)
08-28-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 4:59 AM


Re: What is information?
I'll show you what I mean by adding information. I'll take my example of a piece of code:

That's a nice example. How much more information does the second piece of code contain than the first?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 4:59 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 6:14 AM cavediver has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2409 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 234 of 458 (521582)
08-28-2009 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 4:59 AM


Re: What is information?
Yip, well said.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 4:59 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2009 7:53 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 458 (521584)
08-28-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by cavediver
08-28-2009 5:45 AM


Re: What is information?
cavediver writes:

That's a nice example. How much more information does the second piece of code contain than the first?

If you want to try quantify the amount of extra information, that's a mathematical task that I'm not going to attempt for the sake of a response.

More importantly the code has introduced functionality that was not previously there.

This is what evolutionism has to try explain, not me.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 5:45 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 8:00 AM LucyTheApe has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 236 of 458 (521586)
08-28-2009 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 4:59 AM


Re: What is information?
It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance.

You know I mentioned the existence of genetic programming? Let me mention it again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 4:59 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17969
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 237 of 458 (521594)
08-28-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 4:59 AM


Re: What is information?
LucyTheApe writes:

It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance.

Sure it can, and I provided an example back in Message 154.

Everyone already agrees that an intelligence can create information. Why are you trying to prove something everyone already agrees with?

You're ignoring the central issue: whether random chance can create information. If you think it can't then you have to find the flaws in the many examples provided to you, such as the one in Message 154.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 4:59 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14551
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 238 of 458 (521597)
08-28-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Arphy
08-28-2009 6:01 AM


Re: What is information?
As Arphy recognises the best creationists can do is evade discussing the details and rely on pure assertion.

Which shows how worthless the whole argument is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Arphy, posted 08-28-2009 6:01 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16065
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 239 of 458 (521598)
08-28-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by traderdrew
08-27-2009 12:23 PM


I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why. There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea. This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion.

How much ignorance of nature do we need for it to magically turn into knowledge of God?

After all, our species spent millennia not knowing, for example, what lightning was, and yet all that ignorance did not, as it turned out, add up to one scrap of knowledge about the thunder-god Thor and his magic hammer.

Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis is apparently more than just a hypothesis. Anyone who thinks the sequences in DNA are nothing more than Shannon information fails to explain how the precise functions and coherence within the cell formed without it.

That paragraph makes less sense then you hoped when you wrote it.

Also, labeling me as a creationist is off the topic and an argument more from philosophy.

And, also, not something I actually did.

The ID paradigm is distinct from creationism. It is sort of a hybrid between science and creationism but more toward science. It is a particular way of thinking and once you start to use the paradigm, the differences become obvious. See link below which helps discern the differences.

The similarities are rather more striking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by traderdrew, posted 08-27-2009 12:23 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1619 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 240 of 458 (521600)
08-28-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by LucyTheApe
08-28-2009 6:14 AM


Re: What is information?
that's a mathematical task that I'm not going to attempt for the sake of a response.

So you do know how to quantify it, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-28-2009 6:14 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-04-2009 5:37 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018