Give your one best shot - against evolution

quote:

---

Yes, Fred, your (perhaps not so) favorite bonehead geologist here still wondering how you apply Gitt Information to biological systems.

---

It’s perhaps worth belaboring my point. My primary goal here is to show that information is devastating to evolution even if we ignore the Gitt nail-in-the-coffin definition of information. Using less stringent requirements for information, such as the corollaries I gave Mark and Joe Meert, evolutionists are still left without a chair when the music stops!

quote:

---

What conscious mind is sending the message from organism to organism?

---

You misunderstand what Gitt is saying. The information was already programmed in the genome by the Sender (Jesus Christ) at the point of creation. From that point on, the information slowly deteriorates over time, and eventually you get people who start believing in fairytales!

quote:

---

And unfortunately, I have been exposed to too many numerical models of complex natural systems that utterly fail to represent reality.

---

LOL! It’s because you are a geologist!

quote:

---

A example of a new algorithm developing from random mutation was provided in Message 142.

---

There are several problems with your simulation. It shares the same shortcomings as Dawkins simulation, plus some of the failings of Genetic Algorithms.1) The chance of success is unity. So even using the Shannon information (the lowest level), your simulation fails to produce new information randomly.
2) You have a pre-determined target. Therefore, any information your simulation produces can only be actuated in the presence of already existing information. That is, by higher intelligence — you. You have programmed the simulation to stop at the pattern you like. Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did.
3) A minor point since the above already invalidate your argument: As it relates to reality, your simulation (like genetic algorithms and Dawkin’s simulation) employs strict truncation selection, which is extremely unrealistic and simply does not occur in nature.I should also note that your simulation did not develop a new algorithm. It developed a pre-determined pattern. An algorithm is the same as subroutine, if that helps.

quote:

---

The problem is most definitely not the subjective use of the term beneficial. I have given you a hypothetical example, that is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, is it new information, or not?

---

What hypothetical example did you give me?What if the mutation is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, yet it is not beneficial to the population as a whole? Sickle-cell again rears its ugly head. The problem most definitely is the subjective term beneficial and the importance of considering the population as a whole within a range of possible environments (within reason). For example, it may appear beneficial for an offspring to lose the gene for hair via mutation in an increasingly hot environment. But if the gene for long hair over time completely vanishes from the population then information is clearly lost! Yet by your definition information was gained. Do you see the problem with your logic, and why a clear definition of beneficial is necessary?

quote:

---

Sickle cell trait shows a phenotypic gain & loss of function.

---

No it shows a phenotypic loss for the population as a whole, and a phenotypic gain only in an unhealthy environment.

quote:

---

Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?

---

Quite easily. By your logic, if your computer explodes into a ball of fire, and you toast marshmellows over it, then it must be new information since its got a new function! As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).

quote:

---

I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario, where a new function is gained via a mutation. Whether it is beneficial to the organism there & then is irrelevant.

---

My marshmellow analogy shows that it is quite relevant!

quote:

---

For example, an enzyme that digests cellulose in a carnivore may not immediately benefit the species, but in a few generations during a famine may decide whether a few organisms live or die. You can say it’s only new info at that stage, I really don’t mind.

---

No, it’s not new info if it is already pre-programmed information that is idle. You are now getting very close to the third of three common objections I get on the information problem!BTW, why didn’t evolution select for cellulose since it is so readily abundant?

quote:

---

I’m sure you’ve heard of the nylon digesting bacteria, ( http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ), where the addition of a single thymine produces an enzyme that digests nylon in a gene sequence. Here an organism has a new feature

---

Is it a useful feature, or is it bad (something we can roast marshmellows over)?

quote:

---

, now, either,
1/ a new algorithm has produced a new feature, fulfilling your definition of new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, or,

---

No, I said the feature has to be useful. Why did you leave useful out? And it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm. It makes the organism heterozygous at that locus. That means if one has a selective advantage over the other and gains a foothold in the population, then the less fit allele might be driven to extinction over time. Is the net result a positive gain of information, or a negative gain? Those are the types of questions that need to be asked. It's also why evolutionists posit gene duplication, then mutation, to get new information in the genome.

quote:

---

2/ a new feature occurred without a new algorithm, making your statement wrong. In this case it comes back to new function not requiring new information, & therefore evolution not requiring new information, as you define it.

---

That’s not how I defined it. I never said that new function requires new information. I said that new useful functions, such as sonar development, require new programming (new algorithm, ie new information) in the genome.

quote:

---

Evolutionary theory predicts it happened via many small incremental mutations that add/delete/improve function,

---

Ah, therein lies the problem! Even if beneficial mutations occur, you cannot earn pennies and spend dimes and expect to make money. Science has shown overwhelmingly that genomes are deteriorating. The pace is downward, not upward.

quote:

---

rather than saltational events.

---

Evolutionary theory never predicted this! The data rejected it, so the evolutionary theory accommodated it! That’s one of the big problems with the evo theory (it’s hard to call it a theory when it’s really a low-grade hypothesis), it predicts nothing and accomodates everything. If saltational events had been found, then you would be saying that evolution predicted it all along!

quote:

---

If you are saying that these increments do not represent information, then so be it, but information science then cannot prohibit evolution.

---

Information science prohibits evolution because of what evolution claims, that huge amounts of information have accumulated via random mutation and blind selection. Evolution also claims that the genetic code arose naturalistically. Information science also says that this is impossible.The problem is, even with watered down definitions of information, you still can’t win. Dr Lee Spetner documents this well in his book ‘Not by Chance’. You talk about small incremental mutations, yet you can’t even find one bonafide example of an increment (unless you of course define increment loosely so that it could be a decrement!

quote:

---

Information, as you define it, still seems irrelevant to me regarding evolution.

---

Join a big crowd of evolutionists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Evolution is a fairytale, folks! (that was for Scotty )

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

quote:

---

What do both of these examples have in common? Both would fall under the no new information created domain. That’s right, we now have Chinese, Germans, Indians, Nigerians, Arabs, Native Americans, etc., all hypothetically derived from a founding population of 2, and no new information was created in the process. Once there were few alleles, now there are many. Yet there was no increase in information. As I have said before, evolution is able to proceed nicely under this Creationist definition of information.

---

LOL! So, do you think that evolution is able to proceed nicely via harmful mutations only? Please do not avoid this question. Answer it directly. Then perhaps you will see the speciousness of your logic above.[Note: I think Fedmahn's strawman is the most common one I see erected by evos]

quote:

---

It's a model of evolution doing precisely what you said Gitt-information says is impossible, namely develop a new algorithm from random mutation.

---

Again, your simulation does not produce an alogorithm. Second, to be specific Gitt information says it is impossible to generate new information via random mutation without a sender.

quote:

---

First, this objection based upon Shannon misunderstands Shannon, whose work dealt with communication of information over channels and did not address the issue of new information. He *did* address the issue of what constituted communicating information, along the lines of saying that you can't tell someone something he already knows.

---

Your last sentence is basically correct, but it contradicts your penultimate sentence (which is incorrect).Your last sentence is actually a positive sign, as you apparently recognize that being handed one dictionary when you already have that exact dictionary is not new information (I think Mark and TrueCreation both stumbled on this). Now consider your own understanding of Shannon theory. Your simulation has a 100% chance to reach your pre-determined target. That means you received no new information by your own understanding of Shannon information (you were told something you already knew).

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) You have a pre-determined target. Therefore, any information your simulation produces can only be actuated in the presence of already existing information. That is, by higher intelligence — you. You have programmed the simulation to stop at the pattern you like. Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

First, if this had any validity it would rule out all modeling, from weather to flight paths of spacecraft to nuclear particle physics.

---

You misunderstand. I did not say that info science rules out a simulation from producing new information. Look what I said above Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did. You produced the information! Info science says that you cannot produce information via randomness & selection without an intelligent sender. The following is a cut&paste from my debate a couple years ago with Budikka on my website:---Begin Paste---
GAs [genetic algorithms] are really no more than computer controlled trial&error experiments. These experiments require an intelligent "selector" to prune the information from the GA to some desired target. If there is a pre-selected goal or target, then an "information giver" is needed up front to get the information! This is why evolutionists try to deny the existence of a target in GAs, but we shall soon see they are mistaken. For example, let=s look at the apparent use of a GA at Lockheed Martin that yielded a more efficient spacecraft movement (this sounds similar to other uses of GAs regarding robotics that I have read in IEEE journals). Engineers would have had to monitor the program until it achieved some goal, and indeed the web site proclaims "It achieves the goal within 2% of the theoretical minimum time". Now remove the engineer and see if this GA ever achieves its goal. It can=t if no one is there to detect it! The program will run to infinity producing useless gibberish of many meaningless manifestations. Only in the presence of intelligence, that is, an "information giver" can the GA provide any use. Otherwise, GAs will always produce meaningless noise, like snow on your TV set. Note that if the engineer programs the GA to stop on "the best solution", then the information is already present since the GA is guaranteed to succeed in some way (information is the reduction of uncertainty).Now try to imagine this mechanism at work "creating" biological systems. Darwinists would have us believe that natural selection, a blind, unintelligent process, acts as the "information giver" ordained to "pick" the best solution from random mutations. But natural selection, unlike GAs, cannot have a target or goal in mind that once achieved, can "stop" the selection process and prevent subsequent corruption from random changes. Also, natural selection cannot prevent an organism from going extinct from too many random mutations. GAs, unlike natural selection, always restart upon extinction. This restart is programmed, and it comes from intelligence (information), something natural selection does not possess.Information theory tells us you cannot, under any circumstances, build information via random processes without the presence of already existing information, ie an Information Giver. Randomness unmonitored by intelligence will strip away information, always, no exceptions.--- End Paste ---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

This is obviously false since it leads to contradictory conclusions, for instance that a new algorithm inserted by humans through gene splicing is information, while the identical algorithm added through random mutation is not information.

---

This is begging the question. You have not provided any evidence that new algorithms have been produced via random mutation and selection in the natural world. Surely if what you say is true, you should be able to produce physical evidence. But evolutionists cannot. Thus, the above Gitt statement has not been falsified. It takes hard evidence to falsify a claim, not someone’s opinion.

quote:

---

Obviously Gitt cannot rationally argue that subtracting information causes function loss but that adding information cannot cause function gain.

---

I think you accidentally twisted this around. This does not match your previous objection. Gitt certainly does not argue the above, as adding information clearly causes function gain. You previously objected thusly: Fred says Gitt-information rules out information gain, but if function loss == information loss, then by necessity function gain == information gain. I said this was a non-sequitur, and it is. You are now essentially re-wording it to say if information loss == function loss, then by necessity information gain == function gain (notice the two parameters at either side of the equal signs are now swapped).

quote:

---

For example, the function must be useful.

---

Of course it must, or what good is it?

quote:

---

What could information theory possibly know or care about whether information is useful?

---

The question is whether or not information is gained or lost. BY your definition, information is gained all the time no matter what! If your brain explodes it's new information because it’s a new function (subroutine: explode_head() ) What would you consider a loss of information?

quote:

---

Or that an algorithm is not a new algorithm if it represents a modification to a pre-existing algorithm instead of coming into being all at once like some form of immaculate conception.

---

Again you misunderstand. The context is genetics. If a mutation occurs to a gene (thereby modifying the algorithm), there still exists another copy at the same locus with the original algorithm. Which is the better algorithm? Let’s return to the dictionary analogy. Do you think that if you are handed an identical dictionary to one you already possess, but it has a typo in it causing some word to be ill-defined, do you really think you have an increase in information? According to your logic you would! But even using Shannon information, information for the ill-defined word is actually lost due to an increase in uncertainty as to which definition is correct.Again, you would be better served to argue for gene duplication, followed by mutation.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science has shown overwhelmingly that genomes are deteriorating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It's okay to argue for your point of view, but let's keep the representations of science straight. This is your own evangelical view, and certainly nowhere remotely close to any accepted view within science.

---

Perhaps it is an unspoken view by scientists that genomes are deteriorating, but I suspect most believe this. Regardless, I can provide scores of studies supporting my claim above. I can go to PubMed and post all kinds of support. Yet you would be very hard pressed to find much of anything in any of the science journals (almost all of which are pro-evolution) to support your apparent claim that genomes are not deteriorating. My claim above certainly is not based merely on an evangelical view, it is based on sound science, with overwhelming data to support it. Because of the wealth of evidence, even some evolutionists are now saying things like humans have reached their evolutionary peak, and even some who acknowledge humans are no de-evolving.

quote:

---

Join a big crowd of Creationists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Creationism is a fairytale, folks! (this one's for you, Fred).

---

Thanks, much appreciated!

quote:

---

Heterozygous at that locus? This is a bacteria we are talking about, it doesn’t have homologous gene pairs as in eukaryotes. A carbohydrate digesting gene was completely lost to all descendents of the parent, & the new allele digests nylon.

---

So now there are two alleles. Which one is better for the population? What would constitute a loss of information to you? It seems you think anything new is a net gain in information. I think this is the crux of the problem you guys are having.

quote:

---

new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. Or are the goalposts being moved now? So that new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence, that is very different indeed to the original parent sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.

---

I made no such goal post adjustments. I did not stipulate that the coding sequence had to be very different indeed to the original parent sequence. Aka, strawman.

quote:

---

Your definition has been met, Fred. Flavobacterium sp.K172 has exhibited new information.

---

I did a search of this, and found that the new information you are talking about is the result of plasmids, which means its not new information at all. Unless of course you think passing information from one hand to the other is new information! Do you?I think I should ask this again. What in the world would constitute a loss of information to you?

quote:

---

Again, your simulation does not produce an algorithm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It certainly *is* an algorithm, and I expressed it mathematically in Message 142.

---

No it isn’t. It’s a pattern, and is a product of an algorithm. This isn’t worth dwelling on, because it’s not important. I only mentioned this error in passing, since Genetic Algorithms such as Terra do attempt to create algorithms via randomness & selection. If your output was an algorithm it would be no better than a GA, which do not generate new information unless intelligence is there to prune it. I’ll have to dig up a quote from respected evolutionist John Joe McFadden from his book Quantum Evolution where he readily acknowledges that GAs are bogus examples of new information.

quote:

---

First, there is nothing in information theory that requires the sender be intelligent.

---

Gitt and others rightly point out that there are no known exceptions in the universe. Only opinions, no experiments are hard physical data to refute this.

quote:

---

Our space probes send us plenty of information, and they're not intelligent.

---

Incorrect. Our space probes are most certainly intelligent, and serve as a sender in the classic sense. The information sent by probes qualifies at the highest level of information as describe by Gitt.

quote:

---

Shannon's approach depends upon random generation of information. Random mutation fits perfectly within Shannon's model.

---

I’m glad you brought this up because it is somewhat controversial. In Shannon’s original paper, he loosely used the word information in conjunction with uncertainty (H), but close examination of the paper reveals that Shannon’s point is that max throughput and optimum information is achieved via the reduction of uncertainty (I recall he called it equivocation). Dr Schnieder is one of many who support this, and why I give him big kudos on his Shannon primer. This article of his specifically addresses your claim: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html

quote:

---

"Begin Paste" from what source? Excerpt ignored pending identification of source.

---

My apologies for not being clear. They are my own words from a debate on my website with Budikka a couple years ago. The link is here, the excerpt is toward the bottom. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_mypost2.htm

quote:

---

My C++ model of random mutation creating a new algorithm clearly falsifies the claim that random mutation cannot create new information. If it can happen in a computer model it most certainly can happen in nature.

---

Percy, you are dreaming. Your simulation doesn’t even qualify for Shannon information. If you believe it does, then you need to provide a mathematical proof using proper Shannon equations. Just you saying so won’t cut it. I would also challenge you to find an information scientist who would agree with you. As I said earlier, I don’t need creation scientists to refute you, I can find evolutionists to do it for me (Schnieder, McFadden, Yockey, )

quote:

---

Then what possible difference could it make whether a new function is added by gene splicing or mutation? If humans add a gene to produce new function then it's information gain, but if random mutation adds an identical gene then it's not information gain? This is a serious contradiction.

---

This is a strawman. If random mutation adds an identical gene to gene slicing that is beneficial then it is indeed information gain (provided we accept this looser standard for information, which is what we are debating). But you keep missing the point. THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL, VERIFIABLE EXAMPLES OF THIS OCCURING IN NATURE! There is NO EVIDENCE that random mutation can create a coding sequence that is beneficial. That is my point. Randomness invariably destroys information. Given less stringent requirements for what "information" is, you guys still shoot blanks!Even if we get an occasionally lucky hit, the odds of it being detected by selection and surviving are very low (no better than 1 in 50, Fischer, Futuyma, et al). To make matters worse, there are virtually a limitless number of examples where multiple steps would be required to be in place before the new information (aka beneficial feature) is recognized by selection. Behe and others have documented this, and the evolutionists can only respond with handwave just-so stories.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a mutation occurs to a gene (thereby modifying the algorithm), there still exists another copy at the same locus with the original algorithm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The original algorithm isn't at the same locus in the offspring, only the parent.

---

Huh? Only a small minority of mutations are transposons. Most are SNPs, which means the mutation in the offsping is at the same locus as in the parent.

quote:

---

Scientists are unlikely to believe something that has no positive evidence with plenty of evidence for the converse.

---

Absolutely incorrect. Most scientists believe evolution, despite any real tangible evidence for it. They believe it for reasons other than evidence. Regardless, please provide this plenty of evidence, using molecular biology, that counters my claim that genomes in are deteriorating.Finally, you never answered my question as to what you would consider a loss of information at the genetic level. I think answering this question is important. Surely there must be some example you can think of where information is lost!

Actually, I found that post "attracive" and planned on responding to it (which still doesn't mean I'll get to it, because I never know when a fire will start here at work). I'm going to tackle Mark's latest, then if I have time that one will be next.I don't know why so many people on internet boards (not all) can't understand that time is a problem for many of us. When things are slow at work I still only have time to maybe make 5 posts a day if I'm lucky. If I get 20 replies a day, I simply do not have the bandwidth to answer all of them.I think it goes without saying that I am much more likely going to engage civil and non-trolling type posters such as yourself, Mark and Percy, among others... That's why this board is appealing right now, becuase there is a lot of good, clean debate and not too many trolls.Gotta go eat!

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-11-2002]

quote:

---

Fred: So now there are two alleles. Which one is better for the population? What would constitute a loss of information to you? It seems you think anything new is a net gain in information. I think this is the crux of the problem you guys are having.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

What? Each organism has one allele, one gene. There is no homologous pair. I use the word allele to differentiate from the un-mutated, & still extant parent gene.

---

My point is that after mutation there will now be two gene versions (allele) in the population. I realize I forgot that the context was your porkaryote (one-celled pig ), but it does not at all negate my argument. The population now has two gene versions floating around at that locus. Which one is truly the better version for the population?I also notice you, like Percy, avoided an important question. What for you would constitute a loss of information at the genetic level?

quote:

---

Now you are moving the goalposts. We are discussing your claim that evolutionary information gain is impossible. Not, evolutionary information net gain is impossible.

---

I AGREE! Evolutionary information net gain is impossible indeed!

quote:

---

We could go off on an unnecessary paper searching tangent here,

---

Unnecessary? The AIG reference shows the information was transferred from another bacteria, so no new information via randomness.

quote:

---

but the point surely is, we have the original carbohydrate gene sequence, we have the nylon gene sequence, & the nylon differs by a single thymine addition. Single nucleotide additions are observed, so it is entirely reasonable & plausible to assert that a thymine addition to a gene produces a new function via a new algorithm.

---

Again, its an altered algorithm, not a new one. That would be like me copying someone’s software, making a single change to one opcode, and calling it new software. More appropriately, it’s a bug fix, or as Percy and I would like to say, enhancement! Regardless, I’ll accept your point for the sake of argument. The same problems still exist for your claim. To summarize:1) plasmid xfer is not generation of new information, it is transfer of already-existing information
2) the new enzyme is no longer specific to its original substrate, which Dr Lee Spetner in ‘Not by Chance’ shows in detail why this type of mutation invariably constitutes a loss of information.It brings me back to the question, which gene version is better for the overall population over time? If I get a mutation in my taste buds that makes me crave spam instead of a juicy T-Bone, am I really better off? HECK NO!

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-11-2002]

quote:

---

"...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created. Indeed, this is the only mechanism known in natural science which can create it."

---

Amazing! I’m curious. Who here truly believes that new genetic information can be created merely by natural selection alone? Any takers, other than Scott?

quote:

---

Also, your continued claim that a tree ring contains a code is truly amazing! I will say it is at the very least quite original!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I said that tree rings contain 'code'? Hmm - lets take a look at what I actually wrote, shall we?

​

"I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?"

​

Emphasis mine. It would do the YEC well to accurately portray his opponant's statements, especially when they are easily accessible.

---

LOL! You should take your own advice. You used code several times in the past, including in my guestbook:----
22 Oct 2001
Time: 05:47:05
Remote Name: 192.149.109.217
Comments
Fred writes: Fact #2: It is impossible to have a code without a senderWho sent the code in tree rings?
----
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestbook_page10.htmOK, this time around you said information, and now your argument is more coherent.Tree rings represent order, not complexity, and since they clearly are not a code they do not represent information, as described by Gitt, Dembski, and others. What about Shannon information? Without giving it much thought, I think a reasonable case can be made that it is Shannon information (I could be wrong here). But is it information from a random source, or is it information from a sender? Trees do not produce tree rings randomly, they follow a fairly consistent pattern.Page notes: Are they just a random pattern? No.Why thank you. Jeepers, man, what's your point?! How does this invalidate any of Gitt’s laws, or for that manner the less stringent definition of information we are debating in this thread?

quote:

---

Gitt - a creationist - claims that all information must come from a 'conscious mind'. Under such a definition, there is no such thing as 'naturally' occurring instances of information generation.
Wonderful how that works.

---

Yes, it does work wonderfully, because there are no known counter examples to Gitt information in earth’s history. Show me a code that originated naturalistically? People need to understand what a code is. I’m not just talking about a new algorighm, or an altered algorithm (these are merely manifestations of an already-existing code). I'm talking about the code itself. That is the heart of Gitt's information laws of nature: the symbols, the syntax, and the semantics (the language). Show me a code, a new language if you will, that can arise naturalistically, outside the presence of already-existing information (intelligence). How did the codon mechanism for selecting amino acids arise naturalistically? (a system BTW with optimum efficieny - you could not have picked a better, more efficient system for selection of 20 amino acids). Information science says code by naturalism is not just improbable, but impossible. Provide one counter example and you refute this claim. Yet time and time again, when we discover a code, by golly we find out there is a sender. If we detect a code from outerspace, we are not going to attribute it to a natural phenomenon. We will immediately recognize there must be an intelligent sender at the other end. Its amazing evolutionists refuse to apply this standard to the discovery of a code in the DNA. It was this discovery that shocked DNA co-founder Francis Crick into dumping the Neo-Darwinian theory. He now thinks aliens seeded the planet with the necessary information — ROTFL!!!I guess one fairytale isn’t much better than another, so pick your poison!

quote:

---

What the algorithm produces is the expression of the organism within the environment in the form of an integer sequence, precisely analogous to biological organisms.

---

Precisely analogous? Come on now, that is quite a stretch. Is this integer sequence a sequence of instructions? If not, then why do you keep claiming it’s an algorithm? Regardless, my point earlier was that even if your simulation was producing an algorithm, Terra already attempts this. But evolutionists themselves question the claims made by the Terra crowd and they will question yours. It’s just not what you think it is, Percy. If it was as you boldy claim, you would have a serious shot at the Nobel Prize!Your simulation appears to be a cross between a Dawkins simulation and Genetic Algorithms. It does not produce information randomly without intelligence there to capture it. Without intelligence it is precisely useless. I do not know how you can deny this fact. We are going to just have to agree to disagree. But I again point out that you have no one on your side who has expertise in info theory who you have cited who supports your simulation. I have already indicated I can provide citations from evolutionists who admit that Dawkins simulation and GAs (and thus yours) do not create information as required by Neo-Darwinism (via randomness and blind selection).

quote:

---

This is clear on its face when you make ridiculous claims such as that intelligence is part of information theory, which it most certainly is not.

---

Percy, I’m sorry but I find it amazing and ironic that you would call ridiculous the undeniable fact that Shannon information requires an intelligent sender. Read Shannon’s original ground-breaking paper if you do not believe me. Shannon’s original paper requires a SENDER and refers to the SENDER as a machine. Perhaps this is a symantics problem. You did not consider a space probe intelligent, which is a computer. What do you consider as intelligence? Only the human mind? (the CIA? Hmm, military intelligence — is that an oxymoron? )

quote:

---

The greater the degree of unpredictability the greater its potential information content.

---

Exactly! Let’s emphasize a key word here: POTENTIAL!I have a question. Do you agree, or disagree with Dr Tom Schnieder that randomness is the very opposite of information?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we get an occasionally lucky hit, the odds of it being detected by selection and surviving are very low (no better than 1 in 50, Fischer, Futuyma, et al).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Lucky hit? How could there be a lucky hit if information theory really rendered it impossible? A bit of equivocation, Fred?

---

Hardly. I’m pointing out that even if we grant for the sake of argument part 1of the fairytale (info creating mutation), there are still major hurdles left for it to survive and become fixed in a population. So many road blocks to evolution!

quote:

---

About information loss, I don't understand why you're pressing me about it as if I thought it couldn't happen. My focus is on your erroneous assertion that information theory rules out beneficial changes stemming from random mutation.

---

Ah, but I think it gets to the very core of your confusion, and I believe dismantles your logic. Why can’t you provide me one example of genetic loss of information at the genetic level that would satisfy you? It seems you and Mark have created a version of your own info theory that is not falsifiable!I think this is all I have time for until next week sometime. Fedmahn, I do intend to get to your post, and your guestbook entry. I’m finally getting somewhat caught up on my home email. I finally finished a big project that was eating up much of my personal time. Here’s my latest creation of complex information. It the new CRS online bookstore. By sum books and videeos and arducate yerselves! http://www.creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv(suggestions welcome)