Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Information and Genetics
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 16 of 262 (13730)
07-17-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
07-16-2002 8:47 PM


quote:
Tell me Fred, what is a new algorithm re. Genetic information, then? You’ve just defined it in such a way that evolution cannot match. A genetic sequence mutates, meaning it will only ever be altered.
As I have stated several times recently, evolutionists who recognize and try to deal with the information problem attempt to get the information required for NDT to produce new algorithms for new functions via gene duplication, then subsequent modifications to that duplicated gene.
quote:
Make a new algorithm out of the above, Fred. You can’t, by your very own definition. Doesn’t matter how intelligent you or God are, you cannot make new algorithm out of the above, it will merely be altered.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said an altered program never can become a new program. I said that it is quite unreasonable to view your particular one mutation example (nylon, et al) as a new algorithm. If your boss asked you to report on the enzyme that allows nylon-digesting, which would be more accurate:
it is the result of an alteration to the gene that originally encoded for carbohydrate digestion,
or
it is the result of a new coding sequence in the gene that originally encoded for carbohydrate digestion.
By your logic a single bug in a subroutine should deem that subroutine as something new. No, it’s BROKEN. You are trying to call it new because you want new information. You are grasping at straws.
quote:
Say, God took non-sonar sequence & changed it to a sonar producing sequence, the first that ever existed! God only altered the parent sequence, ergo it’s not a new algorithm, & therefore new information wasn’t required to produce sonar.
This is easily refuted. What if the non-sonar parent sequence does not have enough genome space available for the new sonar sequence? Can you take the opcode space available for a simple program like a basic calculator, alter it and produce PowerPoint? Of course not.
Regardless, you continue to miss the primary point. I’ll give it one more try, and this time not even consider the AiG citation that argues it was a transfer of information. In the example you provided, essentially a bit in the program was toggled. In order for it to qualify as an increase in information, we need to know several things.
1) To keep things simple, let’s assume a nucleotide change is binary instead of quaternary. So there are two states, 0 and 1. The default, or normal setting is 0, which codes for carbohydrate digestion. Setting 1 codes for nylon. In order for there to be new, or increased information, the original state 0 would have to be the unfavorable state. But it is clear that 0 is the favorable state (in general), and the study confirms that this method is a whopping 98% more efficient. So based on this knowledge, we actually lose information when we go from 0 to 1.
2) Was the mutation random? If so, then from 1) above we can again reasonably conclude that a loss of information occurred. What if the mutation was non-random, that is, environmentally induced? This means there was no net gain or loss of information because the information was already present. I haven’t studied the study you provided in-depth, but from the website you posted my bet is this is a non-random mutation. The author states that it’s been observed more than once. What an un-whitting admission he is making here! Given the odds that this specific mutation would be observable more than once certainly raises eyebrows that this may not be a random event. Another reasonable possibility is that certain portions (hot-spots) of the genome have been pre-programmed for hypermutation during environmental stress to toggle bits in an effort to find a possible combination that improves survival in the degraded environment.
quote:
I will also note that you have still failed to give me an example at the genetic level that you would consider a loss of information. Your own view of information by default permits evolution no matter what. Don’t feel bad, it is standard practice of evolutionists to design their arguments to be un-falsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t feel bad, Fred, I did exactly as you asked.
I do not recall you giving me an example that you would consider info loss. Can you or can’t you? I think this is the third time now I’ve asked. The reason I continue to badger you and Percy for this because I think it gets the core of why you version of information is incorrect. The way you have presented your argument throughout this discussion is that any change is new, or increased information.
To conclude, your nylon—wearing bacteria example is simply not a valid case of info gain (or new info). If the mutaiton in question is random, then it’s a classic case of information loss. Regardless of how you view Lee Spetner, he is qualified to speak on information science (he taught it for years at John Hopkins). He has a similar example in his book and explains why it is clearly a loss of info. Sorry to be blunt, but I’ve only seen layman reject Spetner’s claim. I have not seen any evolutionists who are involved in info science question this key concept of information. That is why the informed evolutionists try to get info via gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation/selection of the new gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 07-16-2002 8:47 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by wj, posted 07-17-2002 8:25 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 07-18-2002 12:29 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 17 of 262 (13731)
07-17-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peter
07-17-2002 3:10 AM


quote:
If we start with 'cat' and modify one letter to make 'bat' is the information conveyed by the second word (to an english speaking individual) new or not ? It's just a modification, but once 'interpreted' to provide information within the recipient isn't it new information ?
It depends. Was it the intent of the sender? If not, the receiver lost information even in the Shannon sense because of loss of certainty. Is it a typo in a dictionary? Again, a clear loss of information. Is it an intentional addition of a new word to the language by the sender? This would be new information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 07-17-2002 3:10 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 3:25 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 18 of 262 (13732)
07-17-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
07-17-2002 1:50 PM


quote:
The starlight we see is full of information, but it was not sent by intelligence. And you can attach a message to an arrow and shoot it across a battlefield, but the tree it strikes is not intelligent.
See my response to Page on tree rings.
quote:
If we refer to the Shannon paper you're so fond of referencing, right on page one he says:
Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem.
As you somewhat alluded to earlier, when Shannon wrote his paper he was not inventing information theory. His purpose was to establish mathematically communication throughput and efficiency. From his paper developed the modern concept of information as understood by today’s info theorists. It was Shannon’s equivocation that is today viewed as Shannon information.
quote:
I have even produced evolutionists who are on the record that GAs are bogus examples of evolution, you only have your opinion to support your claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this is the fallacy of argument from authority
Not if the person has expertise in the field.
quote:
In fact, given time (mainly for applying the selection criteria, since a computer could arrive at E=mc2 in an eyeblink), it's inevitable.
BINGO! Chance of success = UNITY. NO INFORMATION GAINED! Find me one single info theorist in the world who agrees with you that an experiment guaranteed to reach a pre-determined target has produced new information without a sender. We are at a dead end, Percy. You are flat wrong.
quote:
Those that survive to reproduce on average possessed some advantage
This is a textbook tautology, rendering the statement useless.
quote:
Mutations that confer an advantage will be selected for.
Incorrect. Even when evolutionists assume strong selection, they admit that it has at best a 1 in 50 chance of fixation.
quote:
This process is consistent with information theory.
No it isn’t, because information cannot arise naturalistically. There are no known examples in the universe to counter this law of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 07-17-2002 1:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-17-2002 7:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 07-18-2002 6:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 19 of 262 (13734)
07-17-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
07-17-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No it isn’t, because information cannot arise naturalistically. There are no known examples in the universe to counter this law of nature.

This thread is getting extremely tiresome. It should be evident on reflection that "information" is in itself a metaphor for aspects of what canbe perceived, that this metaphor is in turn applied metaphorically to biological processes as a convenience, and that examining the internals of the metaphor may or may not be informative about the biological processes in question, but that conclusions from the metaphor can only be applied to the processes only in so far as the metaphor is appropriate.
Discussing the word "oak" can be informative about oaks, but only to a limited extent.
Discussing the information content, if any, of biological processes can be informative about those processes, but only to a limited extent.
Naturally occuring codes, in the form you describe, occur throughout nature in great abundance. In my garden at the moment there are strawberries signalling their ripeness with a highly effective colour-code. The colour signal conveys information about the state of the sender as surely as my cable modem signals this message.
Howver, it is no surprise to me that Fred should declare that there is no naturally occuring information. Not only does he believe the misguided metaphor suits his purpose, but the nature of the metaphor itself is highly biased. "Information" is a term used primarily to indicate communication between intelligent agents. When applied to other systems metaphorically (as in information theory, where it acquires a specialised technical definition, different from the common usage) it acquires its ramifications. Fred's use is a classic case of the pseudorefuting description - abundant natural information cannot be true information, because true information cannot be natural.
So Fred, is the strawberries' colour information?
I notice you brushed off the tree ring problem with "they are abviously not a code" which was a pathetic answer, which begged more questions than I think you have either time or arguments enough to answer in full.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 07-17-2002 7:32 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 07-18-2002 12:04 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 27 by derwood, posted 07-18-2002 3:05 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 262 (13736)
07-17-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fred Williams
07-17-2002 7:04 PM


Just a couple of observations.
Fred asks how the nylon-digesting enzyme would be reported. Let's assume that we are presented with the nylon bacterium and its carbohydrate eating progenitor devoid of historical knowledge of which food source was available first or which bacterium arose from the other. We could recognise that the two bacteria were very closely related and a gene differed by only one base (addition or deletion?) But which version would be the true version and which one would be the "broken" version? Fred is only making this judgement because we are aware of the historical context. But lose the historical context and add a thousand years of mutation and evolution, how could we distinguish between the "true" code and the "broken" code.
Fred finds support in the comment that "its been observed "more than once"". But were the other occurences the identical mutation or can a variety of mutations produce an adequate protein configuration for metabolising nylon? Obviously if any of the mutations resulted in a severe disadvantage (inability to metabolise carbohydrates) without an offsetting advantage (ability to metabolise yet-to-be-invented nylon) they would be removed by selective pressure.
If as Fred suggests, "certain portions (hot-spots) of the genome have been pre-programmed for hypermutation during environmental stress to toggle bits in an effort to find a possible combination that improves survival in the degraded environment", why does this not occur with all individuals in the bacterial population? Why does the switch only flick (or exist) for a select few? And if such versatility is the produce of intelligent design, why is the alternative state so inefficient? Why not have an efficient carbohydrate metabolising gene and a seperate, efficient nylon metabolising gene to cope with the possibility of a degraded environment?
Fred says "But it is clear that 0 is the favorable state (in general), and the study confirms that this method is a whopping 98% more efficient. So based on this knowledge, we actually lose information when we go from 0 to 1."
Hmmmm. How much "information" did we start with for a nylon metabolising process? How much "information" did we end up with for such a process? Seems like a net increase in "information" on nylon metabolism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fred Williams, posted 07-17-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-18-2002 12:07 AM wj has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 262 (13747)
07-18-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by wj
07-17-2002 8:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Hmmmm. How much "information" did we start with for a nylon metabolising process? How much "information" did we end up with for such a process? Seems like a net increase in "information" on nylon metabolism.

Good point, but one which Fred will not attempt to answer. He seems to prefer to speak qualitatively on this issue instead of quantitatively. Gives him more weasel room I suppose. If he put a number on the amount of information contained in a given system, it would stand for about an hour before his assertion was refuted with an increase in information.
Despite this, no matter how Fred wants to define the change from a non-nylon metabolizing species to a nylon metabolizing species, there are now 2 populations where originally there was just one. Once again, Fred's Theory of Information did not prevent evolution from happening. Who knows, maybe God created the first replicating cell with a trillion base pairs. We have lost lots of information since then according to Fred's definition, but evolution got along just fine anyway.
FK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by wj, posted 07-17-2002 8:25 PM wj has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 22 of 262 (13758)
07-18-2002 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lewissian
07-17-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ChaseNelson:
SLPx,
I am not necessarily back--if so, only for a short while.
I'm sorry but I will not follow up in that thread. Upone my entrance to evcforum, I believe I stated somewhere that I would not be responding if others 'threw the elephant' at me. As soon as it looked (to me, anyway) as if Quetzal was losing, he, Peter, Dr_Tazimus_Maximus, and you all gave rather lengthy responses to me. I'm not about to compete against four.
If you have a specific point you want to make, please bring it up here. However, I will not spend hours typing against numerous arguments.
True, thanks for the welcome. I hope if I'm attacked here that you will come to my aide...
.
Chase

If you will not spend hours typing against numerous arguments, then I have to wonder why you make claims that attract numerous arguments...
Anyway, if you are to be 'attacked', it would probably be for relying a bit too much on creationist literature as per your bibliography.
One question - did you actually read the Lewontin article that you quote from on your home page?
That same quote appears on AiG, and about a hundred other creationist sites, including Fred Williams'. Problem is, if you read the article, you would know that he was not referring to evolution ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lewissian, posted 07-17-2002 5:16 PM Lewissian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by derwood, posted 07-18-2002 11:27 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 23 of 262 (13759)
07-18-2002 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by derwood
07-18-2002 11:25 AM


And by the way, sorry, but Questzal wasn't 'losing'...
Quoting Meyer and Bergman, however, that is a sign of something else. Did you know that Bergman wrote in a book that the coccyx is bifid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 07-18-2002 11:25 AM derwood has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 262 (13760)
07-18-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mister Pamboli
07-17-2002 7:55 PM


Thanks Mr P. I needed that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-17-2002 7:55 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 262 (13761)
07-18-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Fred Williams
07-17-2002 7:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Tell me Fred, what is a new algorithm re. Genetic information, then? You’ve just defined it in such a way that evolution cannot match. A genetic sequence mutates, meaning it will only ever be altered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have stated several times recently, evolutionists who recognize and try to deal with the information problem attempt to get the information required for NDT to produce new algorithms for new functions via gene duplication, then subsequent modifications to that duplicated gene.

That doesn’t answer the question. What do YOU think is a new algorithm re. Genetic material.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
Make a new algorithm out of the above, Fred. You can’t, by your very own definition. Doesn’t matter how intelligent you or God are, you cannot make new algorithm out of the above, it will merely be altered.
Fred:
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said an altered program never can become a new program. I said that it is quite unreasonable to view your particular one mutation example (nylon, et al) as a new algorithm. If your boss asked you to report on the enzyme that allows nylon-digesting, which would be more accurate:

Then I suggest you quantify when an altered algorithm becomes a new algorithm, with citations from info science please.
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was making a logical extension.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
Say, God took non-sonar sequence & changed it to a sonar producing sequence, the first that ever existed! God only altered the parent sequence, ergo it’s not a new algorithm, & therefore new information wasn’t required to produce sonar.
Fred:
This is easily refuted. What if the non-sonar parent sequence does not have enough genome space available for the new sonar sequence? Can you take the opcode space available for a simple program like a basic calculator, alter it and produce PowerPoint? Of course not.

Oh, the genome space increase was a part of the alteration. So God still can alter non-sonar sequence & produce sonar sequence without new information.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Regardless, you continue to miss the primary point. I’ll give it one more try, and this time not even consider the AiG citation that argues it was a transfer of information. In the example you provided, essentially a bit in the program was toggled. In order for it to qualify as an increase in information, we need to know several things.

A bit wasn’t toggled. IT WAS ADDED!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

2) Was the mutation random? If so, then from 1) above we can again reasonably conclude that a loss of information occurred. What if the mutation was non-random, that is, environmentally induced? This means there was no net gain or loss of information because the information was already present. I haven’t studied the study you provided in-depth, but from the website you posted my bet is this is a non-random mutation. The author states that it’s been observed more than once. What an un-whitting admission he is making here! Given the odds that this specific mutation would be observable more than once certainly raises eyebrows that this may not be a random event. Another reasonable possibility is that certain portions (hot-spots) of the genome have been pre-programmed for hypermutation during environmental stress to toggle bits in an effort to find a possible combination that improves survival in the degraded environment.

Hot spots are not pre-programmed. Mutations occur with higher frequency at hot spots regardless of environment.
Gene sequence mutation hot spots are nothing new, however, just because there are hot spots doesn’t preclude the rest of the sequence undergoing mutation (as is observed), rendering your argument moot. Furthermore, if you can’t predict where the next mutation is going to occur, then it’s random (in the sense biologists mean it).
If you apply a strict statistical definition to random, then all loci must have an equal chance of mutation. This definition doesn’t really restrict evolution, because all sites are subject to potential mutation, it is random in the sense that the next substitution site cannot be predicted. You could say that evolution is non-random mutation culled by natural selection/ drift etc, as long as you’re not going to conflate non-random with pre-programmed. It makes no odds, the biology books would need to be altered, but nothing has physically changed.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I will also note that you have still failed to give me an example at the genetic level that you would consider a loss of information. Your own view of information by default permits evolution no matter what. Don’t feel bad, it is standard practice of evolutionists to design their arguments to be un-falsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t feel bad, Fred, I did exactly as you asked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not recall you giving me an example that you would consider info loss. Can you or can’t you? I think this is the third time now I’ve asked. The reason I continue to badger you and Percy for this because I think it gets the core of why you version of information is incorrect. The way you have presented your argument throughout this discussion is that any change is new, or increased information.

You asked for an example of information loss at the genetic level
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=55&m=5#5
2/ A chromosome loss, that carried expressed genes.
Whole genes being lost, it doesn’t get more genetic than this.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

To conclude, your nylon—wearing bacteria example is simply not a valid case of info gain (or new info). If the mutaiton in question is random, then it’s a classic case of information loss. Regardless of how you view Lee Spetner, he is qualified to speak on information science (he taught it for years at John Hopkins). He has a similar example in his book and explains why it is clearly a loss of info. Sorry to be blunt, but I’ve only seen layman reject Spetner’s claim. I have not seen any evolutionists who are involved in info science question this key concept of information. That is why the informed evolutionists try to get info via gene duplication followed by subsequent mutation/selection of the new gene.

It’s interesting that you can see info loss, but not the gain.
1/ Let’s get back to the crux of the argument, does evolution require naturally arising new information in the genome?
2/ Does evolution require naturally arising information that never previously existed in the genome?
What’s the bloody difference, except for a definitive one? You have tried to say evolution can’t occur because, 1/ can’t occur. If this were actually a physical restraint, you would have a point, but since scenario 2/ CAN be true, evolution is safe from information theory.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Fred Williams, posted 07-17-2002 7:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mark24, posted 07-26-2002 5:28 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Lewissian
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 18
From: USA
Joined: 04-21-2002


Message 26 of 262 (13763)
07-18-2002 1:02 PM


Deleted.
Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 07-18-2002 3:43 PM Lewissian has not replied
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 6:53 AM Lewissian has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 27 of 262 (13765)
07-18-2002 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Mister Pamboli
07-17-2002 7:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
This thread is getting extremely tiresome...
I notice you brushed off the tree ring problem with "they are abviously not a code" which was a pathetic answer, which begged more questions than I think you have either time or arguments enough to answer in full.
Indeed.... Argument via personal definiton is a creationist staple...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-17-2002 7:55 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 28 of 262 (13767)
07-18-2002 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Lewissian
07-18-2002 1:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by ChaseNelson:
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If you will not spend hours typing against numerous arguments, then I have to wonder why you make claims that attract numerous arguments...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was discussing genetic information with Quetzal, and I intended to discuss it with Quetzal. He could have presented anything he'd like--however, I'm not going up against four. It's not a fair debate.
You do understand that this is a public board, do you not? If you want only to discuss specific issues with specific individuals, then I suggest that the proper place for that is via email. Of course, this is a discussion board, not a debate board.
quote:
SLPx:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, if you are to be 'attacked', it would probably be for relying a bit too much on creationist literature as per your bibliography.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As per my bibliography, I've read many evolutionist books including Climbing Mount Improbable (which I am in the process of reading, as I stated above), Transducing the Genome, Genome, Finding Darwin's God, Black Holes and Baby Universes (which I do not mention) and others. As I also stated, my bibliography does not include articles, of which I've read many by evolutionists. (Inlcuding Rennie's new one, in which half of his objections are raised against things I don't even believe, and in which he suggests sources on the issue to his readers on the last page--85--and failed to mention one creationist source. Perhaps he's relying a bit too much on evolutionist literature to tell him what the creationists actually believe?)
I don't read too many popular science books myself. I prefer to get the information from the primary literature. Of course, it is nice to have someone condense it all once in a while. I don't know who 'Rennie' is, so I cannot comment on all that. I did just read Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, and I have read Icons of Evolution (in which I found a major out of context quote used as the basis for a ridiculous extrapolation), Refuting Evolution, and The Biotic Message. I found them to be entertaining. Not very informative, scientifically, but entertaining nonetheless.
quote:
It seems to me that Lewontin is referring to naturalism in science, SLPx, which is the basic philosophy that forms the basis of evolutionary humanism.
I have never heard of evolutionary humanism, Chase. Is that the newest thing that I must be a proponant of even if I don't know it? Just like naturalistic materialism? Of course, naturalism in science - methodological naturalism, that is - also forms the basis of physics, geology, medicine, etc. Are all fields of science therefore caput? Or just evolution?
quote:
I did not know that about Bergman, and, embarrassingly, I do not know the definition of 'bifid'. However, I would prefer that you argue against the scientific validity of the specific quote I mentioned, not downsize Bergman and expect to be done with it.
I did not expect any such thing. I merely pointed out that he is not the expert that he is often heralded as being. Of course, I in fact DID already supply an argument against the specific quote by Bergman:
"The use of hemoglobin to prop up his claim is disingenuous, in my opinion.
Indeed, there are examples of "necessary" proteins - cytochrome C for example - that are found in nearly all forms of multicellular life and yet can function while being as much as 50% different in amino acid sequence in different lineages. Does Jerry mention this fact? Or just the one fact that he can use to support his implications?"
quote:
[...]
His [Robert Sauer of MIT] results have shown that, even taking the possibility of variance into account, the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still ‘vanishingly small’, roughly 1 chance in 10^65...[21]
Explain to me, Quetzal, how all of these specific conditions were successfully met, and how the sequence specificity in DNA (and thus the specific sequence of amino acids in protiens, and thus information) came about by chance and evolutionary processes.
This is a common, but quite fallacious form of argument that is seen from creationists. I call it the argument via cart before the horse. Not a very accurate or encompassing title, but allow me to explain.
First, it is all well and good that the odds of some extant protein forming via 'random chance' is very low. So is being dealt a specific hand of cards froma standard deck. Providing, of course, thjat you specify the order, suit, and value of each card prior to them being dealt.
On the other hand, the odds of being dealt a hand of cards is 1. Now, if you take the hand of cards you were dealt and consider the odds of getting that particular hand - that is, specifying the hand after the fact - we once again get that extremely low probability.
So, the problem with such arguments (thus far) is that the specificity that creationists love is an after the fact specificity, that is, cart before the horse.
You ask how such specificity can arise via chance and evolutionary processes.
Back to the cards. Say the dealer (the environment) has in mind a winning hand (the best suited phenotype). He deals the cards, you (an organism) get a random hand (DNA sequence). Say there are a thousand of you playing - a big deck of cards. Chances are slim that even with 1000 players, the 'winning' hand was dealt. You all show your cards. The dealer looks at the hands, and takes away the cards from each player that are not in his 'winning hand.' Some players lose all their cards, and they are out of the game - they become extinct. The dealer then hands out more cards to each player. Again, the dealer goes round and takes away the cards - selects - that are not in the 'winning hand.' Some of the players decide to work as a team. Together, these groups have hands that are getting close to the 'winning hand.' After a few more rounds of taking cards away and dealing more, several players have hands that are really close to the dealer's 'winning hand.' He decides that is good enough. Game over.
Random processes generate variability. Selection and other mechanisms determine which variation succeeds. The successful variations contian the 'information' that some now refer to as specified and wonder how it could have arisen at all...
But I will refer you to the same paper I referred Fred to:
Natural Selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution. 1961. Kimura, M. (working on scanning it for Percy).
quote:
I would prefer that you take up my challenge that "If you have a specific point you want to make, please bring it up here".
Forgive me for not rising to your challenge. I shall be sure to pass on your challenge at the next evilutionist conspiracy meeting I attend.
quote:
However, if you'd like to bring some scientific evidence to my attention, I'd be willing and happy to discuss it with you.
Strange - I was thinking the same thing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Lewissian, posted 07-18-2002 1:02 PM Lewissian has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 262 (13775)
07-18-2002 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
07-17-2002 7:32 PM


Fred writes:

See my response to Page on tree rings.
Yes, I know, tree rings aren't information because they aren't a code. This argument is as wrong for tree rings as it is for starlight. Starlight is information. It is uncoded information, or at least is not represented in a form we would normally think of as a code, but it *is* information.
Chinese writing, alphabets and binary bytes are merely codes that humans have found convenient for representing information. A code is a way of recording, representing and transmitting information, but is not itself information (unless you're interested in the code itself). Information can be coded, and uncoded information is still information.
What's more, it takes only a modest change in perspective to see that light *is* a code. The spectrum of light is represented as waves of different wavelengths, intensities and polarizations. It's a code that can be partially decoded by our eyes, but which really begins to give up its secrets when subjected to spectrum analyzers and so forth.

As you somewhat alluded to earlier, when Shannon wrote his paper he was not inventing information theory.
You must be thinking of someone else.

His purpose was to establish mathematically communication throughput and efficiency. From his paper developed the modern concept of information as understood by today’s info theorists. It was Shannon’s equivocation that is today viewed as Shannon information.
Shannon's equivocation has to do with the randomness and uncertainty that I addressed in earlier messages. But the point I was making this time is that the semantic aspects of information are, as Shannon points out, "irrelevant to the engineering problem." Semantic interpretations, which derive from intelligence, are irrelevant to information theory.
Percy writes:

But this is the fallacy of argument from authority...
Fred replies:

Not if the person has expertise in the field.
Huh? It would be a fallacy even if you were making claims about relativity while citing Einstein. Maybe you haven't heard of the fallacies of debate, but citing authority is one of them. It is used as a means of avoiding having to support a position, eg, "Famous scientist X agrees with me, and that's that."
If you'd like to provide some discussion supporting the positions of the evolutionists you mentioned I'd be glad to look it over.

BINGO! Chance of success = UNITY. NO INFORMATION GAINED! Find me one single info theorist in the world who agrees with you that an experiment guaranteed to reach a pre-determined target has produced new information without a sender.
Once again you're introducing requirements unrelated to information theory, and if I were to do as you suggest and cite info theorists who agree with me it would once again be the fallacy of appeal to authority. A debate is won by supporting your position with evidence and argument, not by saying, "Genius X says so, nyah, nyah."
About the outcome being predetermined, just run the experiment in 1900 before Einstein came up with E=mc2. Or, since E=mc2 was chosen just to have something concrete to focus on, imagine we're only considering unknown equations and apply the afore described selection criteria.

We are at a dead end, Percy. You are flat wrong.
You may be at a dead end, but I'm not. It's fairly clear where your misunderstandings of information theory lie, and each time you restate them the path to correcting you is pretty clear.
Percy writes:

Those that survive to reproduce on average possessed some advantage...
Fred replies:

This is a textbook tautology, rendering the statement useless.
Then so is, "The fastest car wins the race."
I guess calling it a tautology is what you do when you're otherwise at a loss, because as an objection this makes no sense. That was just one sentence in a description outlining the process for which I created the C++ model. It's the part that describes selection, where the closer the sequence becomes to the environmentally imposed sequence, the more likely the offspring is to survive to reproduce.

Incorrect. Even when evolutionists assume strong selection, they admit that it has at best a 1 in 50 chance of fixation.
Once again you're citing unknown evolutionists saying things that heaven only knows were really said, and obviously I wasn't trying to describe things at the level of detail of fixing genes within populations.

No it isn’t, because information cannot arise naturalistically. There are no known examples in the universe to counter this law of nature.
And yet descent with modification through selection and mutation happens. And since we understand reproduction and mutation we are able to model them, just like any other natural process we understand.
Two different threads of objection to your information theory position are being followed in this thread, and both are valid. One provides illustration that the very process that you claim information theory renders impossible most definitely has occurred and is still occurring. The other shows the ways in which you misunderstand information theory, for instance by attaching unrelated requirements like utility and intelligence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 07-17-2002 7:32 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Lewissian
Member (Idle past 4726 days)
Posts: 18
From: USA
Joined: 04-21-2002


Message 30 of 262 (13795)
07-19-2002 12:11 AM


Deleted.
Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by derwood, posted 07-19-2002 2:46 PM Lewissian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024