Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:35 AM
15 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 211 of 224 (13468)
07-13-2002 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Fred Williams
07-12-2002 6:36 PM


Fred writes:

ďPrecisely analogousĒ? Come on now, that is quite a stretch. Is this integer sequence a sequence of instructions? If not, then why do you keep claiming itís an algorithm?

You still misunderstand the model. The bits are the organism, the sequence of states within those bits is the expression of the organism within the environment, the coefficients are the genes which control the sequence of states, and the source of mutation of the coefficients is a random number generator.

The coefficients, ie, the genes, control the next state of each bit, which is the expression of the organism within the environment, just as our own genes control the expression of ourselves in our own environments. The algorithm to determine the next state of each bit is simply a sum of terms where the terms are a function of the values of the coefficients. As I told you originally, it's basically a PLA with states, ie, a state machine.

In case it helps, here's the link to the C++ program again: Ring Counter Evolution


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. Itís 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!

You seem to be operating under some strange illusion that the scientific world is in alarm hoping for a solution to the seemingly intractable problem of how evolution could possibly happen when information theory says it's impossible. The reality is that the only people who think there's a problem are a few Christian evangelicals. One doesn't win a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the obvious.


Percy, Iím sorry but I find it amazing and ironic that you would call ridiculous the undeniable fact that Shannon information requires an intelligent sender.

You're still way out in left field with this intelligence business.

First, to answer a related point you make, no, computers and spacecraft are not intelligent.

Second, the transmission of information does not require an intelligent sender. When you look up at the stars there are no intelligent aliens out there sending the starlight, yet there's so much information in that light that we've been able to deduce the processes of the stellar furnace and the age of the universe. While it took intelligence to make sense of the information, it took no intelligence at all to either send or receive it.

Shannon's model of transmitting information only requires a sender, a communications channel and a receiver, and as expressed in his paper these were automated, not intelligent, devices.

You're only confusing yourself when you attempt to add value laden judgments like "utility" to information theory. A telegraph clerk during WWII receives a coded cipher from the underground, "The pebbles fall lightly," and he has no idea what it means. It is useless to him. Does that mean no information was transmitted? He brings the message to his superiors, who check their cipher books and learn that the message means to schedule a parachute drop of supplies that night. In your view no information was transmitted from the underground to the clerk, and not even from the clerk to his superiors since the clerk didn't understand the message, but only from the codebook to the clerk's superiors? Is this like the immaculate conception of information, where it suddenly springs forth from no source? Or is it the quantum uncertainty theory of information, where information isn't really information until someone who understands it examines it? I don't think so.

You'll only be able to start making sense of information theory by removing from your perspective those elements which are value judgments, such as what is useful and what is intelligence. They play no role in information theory.

Percy writes
About information loss, I don't understand why you're pressing me about it as if I thought it couldn't happen.

Fred replies:

Ah, but I think it gets to the very core of your confusion, and I believe dismantles your logic. Why canít you provide me one example of genetic loss of information at the genetic level that would satisfy you?

Fred, I don't know where you're picking up this strange interpretation, but of course I think information can be lost. Either you're trying to make some non-obvious point known only to yourself, or you're not paying attention. If it helps to get through this particular red herring of a point, simply eliminate a nucleotide, a gene, a chromosome, an organism which possesses the last existing copy of a particular allele.

But this is irrelevant. The point being challenged is your assertion that information theory rules out the possibility of random mutation creating new genetic information. Of course mutation can create new information. What could possibly prevent it?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 6:36 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 212 of 224 (13476)
07-13-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Fred Williams
07-12-2002 6:36 PM


Hi Fred!

Sorry to split this into two replies, but another thought came to me about one point you made:


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. Itís 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!

I don't know who Terra or the "Terra crowd" are, or who the evolutionists you're thinking of are, but this all seems like the most obvious quackery. We create computer models of natural processes all the time. We know DNA is the blueprint for the organism, we understand how reproduction works at a genetic level, we know reproductive errors of various sorts occur, yet you somehow think creating a model of this process is so incredibly difficult and thorny a problem that not only have others struggled with it and failed, but that a solution is worthy of a Nobel Prize?

In reality, creating such a model is easy. It takes about an hour. Mine is a very simple model because it only addresses your specific point that random mutation cannot create new information. Creating such models only becomes rocket science to someone determined to believe the process being modeled is impossible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 6:36 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by gene90, posted 07-13-2002 6:07 PM Percy has responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1929 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 213 of 224 (13478)
07-13-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
07-13-2002 4:35 PM


[QUOTE][b]I don't know who Terra or the "Terra crowd" are, or who the evolutionists you're thinking of are, but this all seems like the most obvious quackery.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Terra is an artificial life simulation for PCs running (I think) Unix-derived OS's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 07-13-2002 4:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 07-13-2002 7:11 PM gene90 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 214 of 224 (13479)
07-13-2002 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by gene90
07-13-2002 6:07 PM


Thanks, Gene, found it. Terra Nornia is just one of many worlds created for the Creatures game, which apparently has versions 1, 2 and 3, and none of which I know anything about. If there's a "Terra Crowd" using the Creatures game to do serious modeling of mutation and natural selection I couldn't find it. This seems more like a game than a serious simulation to me, more on the order of Sims. The websites are full of pictures like this:

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by gene90, posted 07-13-2002 6:07 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by gene90, posted 07-13-2002 11:10 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1929 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 215 of 224 (13488)
07-13-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Percy
07-13-2002 7:11 PM


That's not the one. Terra was a frustrating and technical shareware program from, oh, circa 1995 I'd say.

I can't find any trace of it on the search engines. I do recall attempting to download and install it a few times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 07-13-2002 7:11 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Mister Pamboli, posted 07-23-2002 4:14 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 216 of 224 (13559)
07-15-2002 11:21 AM


Peter has opened a new thread for the information theory discussion:

Information and Genetics

I suggest that the information theory topic be moved to that thread.

--Percy


    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 217 of 224 (13571)
07-15-2002 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Fred Williams
07-11-2002 3:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
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.

Well, lets hope so, as it was made in direct response to one of your 'challenges'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Fred Williams, posted 07-11-2002 3:03 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 218 of 224 (13573)
07-15-2002 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Percy
07-12-2002 8:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
SLPx quotes Kimura:

"...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."

Fred replies:

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

Either there is more to Kimura's point, eg, some kind of qualification related to equating new genetic information with permutational recombinations of existing alleles, or eg, the first part of the sentence that was excised mentions additional mechanisms, etc, or I have to share Fred's skepticism that natural selection alone can create new genetic information.

--Percy


I will gladly scan and send you a copy of the paper, if you wish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 07-12-2002 8:54 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 219 of 224 (13574)
07-15-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Fred Williams
07-12-2002 6:36 PM


I agree with everything edge wrote in reply to Fred's supposed response (re: tree rings and information... code.. copmplex information.. whatever Fred wants to call it to suit his immediate needs), so will not add anything else.

But as far as Dr.Tom Schneider goes, I do agree with his assessment of Fred's web site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 6:36 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 07-15-2002 3:30 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18369
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 220 of 224 (13581)
07-15-2002 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by derwood
07-15-2002 2:24 PM


I'm posting answers over at the Information and Genetics thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:24 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 221 of 224 (13583)
07-15-2002 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Fred Williams
07-11-2002 5:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Tree rings represent order, not complexity, and since they clearly are not a ďcodeĒ they do not represent information, as described by Gitt, Dembski, and others.

Whatever...

You may not want to be so quick to use Demski as a source on this. He is not. afterall, an information scientist. But more importantly, Godfrey-Smith demolishes Demski's claims - even their foundational assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Fred Williams, posted 07-11-2002 5:31 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3301 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 222 of 224 (13598)
07-15-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Fred Williams
07-11-2002 4:39 PM


Fred,

Info & Genetic replies are over here now.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=55&m=5#5

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Fred Williams, posted 07-11-2002 4:39 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 223 of 224 (14012)
07-23-2002 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by gene90
07-13-2002 11:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
That's not the one. Terra was a frustrating and technical shareware program from, oh, circa 1995 I'd say.

I can't find any trace of it on the search engines. I do recall attempting to download and install it a few times.


Sorry I didn't pick this one up sooner - I presume the software referrred to is actualy Tierra

http://www.isd.atr.co.jp/~ray/tierra/index.html

Have fun with it ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by gene90, posted 07-13-2002 11:10 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 224 of 224 (20489)
10-22-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by peter borger
07-08-2002 8:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
State of the art: molecular biology shattered the evolution theory.

Why don't you have a look at the 4 shattering arguments against evolution I posted today. (topic: the scientific end of evolution). The past 20 years have demonstrated the evolution theory to be wrong. Since science behaves like slow matter it will take a couple of decades before everyone is aware of it. (At least, if evolutionists are willing to admit it).


BWAAAHHAAAA!!!

Wow - don't know how I missed this one - Klassic Kretin Komedy at its most arrogant!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019