Intelligent Design in Universities

You still are avoiding answering the question. We're trying to learn from you if there is any basis to even consider ID.Does group 1 contain more information than group 2?Why?Does the amount of information depend on the order of the coins?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Oh dear, I think this conversation is taking a turn for the worse.

---

Well cheer up, man. The sky's not falling yet.

quote:

---

1) Since in the situation I described the configurational entropy can decrease (and has a probability of 0.5 of doing so) and cannot increase then it follows that there cannot be a law which states that the configurational entropy will tend to increase in that situation. That being the case your version of the 2LotD does not apply.

---

I don't have a version of 2LOT, I use the same one everybody else does. So you really think that 2LOT does not apply to matter based on the logic that when I flip a quarter it is equiprobable to get heads or tails?Gee Paul, I kind of admire you because since 2LOT doesn't apply to your car, you never have to buy a new one. I do. Paint never gets old on your house so that is nice. And you will never grow old and die. Through this logic, you have found immortality!

quote:

---

There is no need to calculate any logarithms because all we need to do is observe that the entropy increases the closer the number of heads and the number of tails are to each other. Thus any change which makes the numbers closer will increase entropy and any change which makes them further apart will decrease it.

---

I see. So the physics of Richard Feynman when he taught us that logical entropy is the way matter is arranged and: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy." Are just not correct, in your opinion?The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy and Evolution. by Brig Klyce

quote:

---

So, I am generalising my previous example to cover all sequences - taking m as the number of heads and n as the number of tails. Thus if we randomly choose a coin the probability of it being a a head is m/(m + n) (m heads and m + n coins). The probability of it being a tail is n(m + n) (n tails and m + n coins).

---

Nope. The probability of that one coin being a head is calculated via the formula:P(A) = f/nWhere the probability (P) of an event (A) equals the number of actual events, (f) divided by all possible outcomes, (n).That works out to 1/2 = .5. That's where you're trying to go, you're just not quite sure how to get there.

quote:

---

When the coin is flipped again the probability of it not changing state is 0.5 in each case.
The probability that the entropy remains unchanged is the probability of choosing a head and getting a head on the flip or of choosing a tail and getting a tail on the flip.
This is therefore 0.5 * m/(m + n) + 0.5 n/(m + n) = 0.5
To get a decrease in the entropy we need to pick a coin in the less common state and for the flip to change it.
The probability of that is 0.5 * min(m, n)/(m + n) which will be non-zero for all m,n where m > 0 and n > 0
Thus for all cases where both m and n are greater than zero "mutating" the sequence by choosing a coin and flipping it again will not tend to increase the entropy. The probability of an increase in entropy is always less than 0.5.
3) I'm sorry also that you are unfamiliar with basic evolutionary theory. Since a simple reference is in order try this:
Are Mutations Harmful?

---

See, this is what happens when one chooses to get their science from a religionist atheist apologist site. They don't do science over there, they do secular humanist religion and CALL it science.

quote:

---

Now why don't you back up YOUR assertion that the opposite is true ?

---

I did. Just read the study and you will know exactly what happens:http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/eang33/

---

Design Dynamics

What does this prove ? They're adding two unrelated quantities. Like your attempts, theirs is incorrect.Even the ICR has Ph.Ds. So why should that sway the argument ? Try quoting something from Phys. Rev. or another actual physics journal, if you want to quote references.I haven't seen any of the other mainstream physicists on here correct any errors I've made, and I'd hope they would do so.Try computing the thermodynamic entropy change caused by heating a deck of cards, or the coins in the coin example, by 1 degree K, and the Shannon entropy change of reshuffling the cards or coins. The thermodynamic entropy change is orders of magnitude larger, because there are many more microstates of the molecules in the substances, than there are permutations.And you made it even worse in your next post by trying to equate thermodynamic and Shannon entropy with E = mc**2. This is the mother of all non-sequiturs. Neither the thermal motion of molecules in, or the permutations, of coins or genes, is relativistic. You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that.My point is that you are the one making equivocating claims that the 2LOT applies to Shannon entropy, and you are the one that should retract that argument, because it's false. OK. When in a hole, stop digging. I shouldn't need to quote standard undergraduate thermo/stat mech texts like Kittel or Reif, but I was laboring under the impression that you did know enough at this level for discussion. If you in fact have studied at this level, sadly, it evidently hasn't availed you much. Well if that thought comforts you, whatever. But you've not shown any evidence that it is the case. Quite the contrary.

quote:

---

You still are avoiding answering the question. We're trying to learn from you if there is any basis to even consider ID.

---

I'm not avoiding anything, I don't understand the danged question. Why does me selecting one of those coin arrangements have anything to do with ID? You are not parsing your words well enough for me to know what it is you want.

quote:

---

Does group 1 contain more information than group 2?

​

Why?

---

That is simply not possible to answer because I do not know what kind of pattern you were going for. Were you trying to get all heads? If so, then pattern 1 has more information content.If you were going for tails, then pattern 1 contains the lowest information. If these patterns were just random flips, then they are equal in information. What do the coins represent? Anything?Please clear this up, if you expect a cogent answer because if you do not it's just a silly question and nonsensical.I grow weary of this game.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

I haven't seen any of the other mainstream physicists on here correct any errors I've made, and I'd hope they would do so.

---

Right. And I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't find others on here that will be so brazen as to state that Feynman was a creationist and therefore,just wrong, but they are right. You had the last word. Thanks for the good conversation.Edited because I meant to say.......This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 06:09 PM

---

Design Dynamics

Paul,
I think I see what the prob with the issue is. I had heard NPR interview Owen Gingerich a couple of weeks ago or so in the artery of being a person able to have both ID and science and today with SNOOP blaring in the background and having had enough of Science Friday on NPR I purchased Ginverich's book "THE BOOK NOBODY READ". I verified a lot of things extraneous to this thread.The first time I thought I had encountered Feynman discussing quantum computation I had had the thought that he was discussing what Jerry calls "logical entropy" here at least in part but READING GINGERCIH'S book in view of NPR's spin ON ID I notice something highly significant on page 264 where Owen discusses if Copernicus had stablized his geometry with knowledge of past Islamic math antecendents or not. Gingerich presents history with two possiblities, that Copernicus had the whole thing past Ptolemy in his own singluar mind OR he had information from the collective Islamic past. He decides that TWO (as Gingerich WRITES it) asethetic appearences WERE all in copernicus mind.The problem we are dealing with is not this one about the direction to outlining geocentrism or not but rather if ID has an ability to contribute IN THE JUDGEMENT OF WHAT Gingerich presents as two are rather only one thus misused unconsciously by IDists or if instead of two or no ID does present something that science has not addressed because it cant grasp this enumeration as of yet.You are quite correct to point to failures of understanding evolutionary biology for to remain wholly in a physical teleological mode grammer will never bu itself resolve or solve the problem. The issue remains however( in my representaion here) as to if the division is justified (I suspect instead that NPR is wrong even to audible sounds) or rather if the import of ID to islamic world is new or old.Either way it is quite interesting to consider. Jerry is remarkably good at presenting a discussion within the confines of what has been ALREADY posted on EVC but if it is not one mind but many here it would be nice to see IDists reveal what the asthetic is that drives their judgement. I am not judging Jerry there by. I could be wrong about Feynman as I have not tried to think Gingerich's position from Feynman's perspective irregardless of my own theoretical biological interest in the matter of whether or not astrology has anything to do with biogeography or not.
_---------------------------------
I hope this helps. If not, please ignore. Best, Brad.

Feynman was right, you are wrong. Feynman was talking about microstates, you and your references are talking about macrostates. In addition, Boltzmann's formula applies only to a system at constant volume, energy, and composition (and perhaps other constant items, depending on the system). See, e.g., Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense! and Note on Entropy, Disorder and Disorganization

As an interested member of the public (as opposed to a member of the scientific community) I find this thread extremely valuable.Jerry has done a great job against several opponents. Frankly I tend to side with him at least in terms of this thread, partly because I sence more hostility from some of the others, which leads me to wonder how much their emotion clouds their judgement.Emotion is everywhere in this debate. One MUST empty the mind of emotion when dealing with issues like this. Otherwise you are on the path to the Dark-side. This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-06-2005 06:13 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-06-2005 06:14 PM

quote:

---

Feynman was right, you are wrong. Feynman was talking about microstates, you and your references are talking about macrostates.

---

No they're not. You have misunderstood me. When I calculated the genome, I used microstates just as did Feynman. The macrostates dealt with something else.

quote:

---

In addition, Boltzmann's formula applies only to a system at constant volume, energy, and composition (and perhaps other constant items, depending on the system). See, e.g.,

---

Here you are just wrong. I'm assuming constant pressure and volume, of course. But not constant energy for if that were true, there could be no entropy change. In this formula deltaS = Q/T, T is the absolute temperature which doesn't change in a reservoir, Q is the energy expressed in Joules, so if S changes, Q has to.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

Are you saying that mutations that have an identifiable cause such as UV radiation, carcinogens or transcription are not random?

---

I would suppose that they are not random in that they are "caused" by something, but I recognize that may be a tad subjective.What we really have to ask ourselves is did evolution occur via random mutations and natural selection as everyone says it did.If the mutations were random then they occur with equiprobability as each nucleotide has just as much a chance of mutating as does any other nucleotide. Our only other choice is that they are stochastic bringing predictability into the picture. Now is there anyone you know who can sit down and calculate the probabilities of what will mutate the next time an organism reproduces? No. Therein lies the answer. They ARE random.

quote:

---

Apologies to the people who know this stuff if all this obvious/wrong - it's the price you pay for using these forums

---

This is how we learn!

---

Design Dynamics

I'm trying to understand here, why does something being random mean it has to be equiprobable? Can't the probability of something be impossible to calculate (and thus random according to yourself) but simply more likely to occur than something else? An illustrative example: If I have two dice, one has 6 sides, the other has 100. They are both random, but the chances of either one rolling a '4' is not equiprobable is it? Naturally, we can sit down and calculate the probabilities in this case, so to make it better, how about we use dice with a random number of sides (equal to or greater than 4)? Are they equiprobable now?Please, tell me if I am misrepresenting you here.

quote:

---

I'm trying to understand here, why does something being random mean it has to be equiprobable? Can't the probability of something be impossible to calculate (and thus random according to yourself) but simply more likely to occur than something else?

---

I don't see how. We have PhDs that do this kind of math like Dembski and Tipler and I would see no cases where probabilities cannot be calculated when probabilities are known to occur. Of course, they are still just probabilities.

quote:

---

An illustrative example: If I have two dice, one has 6 sides, the other has 100. They are both random, but the chances of either one rolling a '4' is not equiprobable is it? Naturally, we can sit down and calculate the probabilities in this case, so to make it better, how about we use dice with a random number of sides (equal to or greater than 4)? Are they equiprobable now?

---

I would certainly enjoy you being in my craps game! This does not relate to the discussion, IMHO, because your die do not have the same number of sides and therefore are not equiprobable. There are exactly 4 bases that form the codons in DNA. Any of these bases can mutate, so is one base more probable to mutate than another? I don't think so and I would have to see the math and what it based on before I would be convinced otherwise.

---

Design Dynamics

You seem to totally misunderstand science.you say: You claim that ID can be observed, that there is information in the piles of coins and that math can be used to determine that information content and Design.I simply want to know where the evidence leads us. I have no predtermined results.Now please tell me when I observe three groups of quarters,

1. H H H H H H H H H H
2. H T T T H H T H T H
3. H T H T H H T T T H
   

which pile has the most information and why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, good I'm not going crazy. This basically is a respsonse to your dismissal of Message 134. It seems to me that certain phenemenon can 'load the dice', or to quote one of the abstracts:

quote:

---

Mutation frequencies vary significantly along nucleotide sequences such that mutations often concentrate at certain positions called hotspots.

---

The term 'mutation frequencies vary' seems to me to be saying that mutation probabilities aren't equiprobable.

1. Have I interpreted the abstract correctly?
2. Do you agree with the abstract?

**********edit*************At first I didn't understand what you meant when you said: in response to my question "Can't the probability of something be impossible to calculate but be simply more likely to occur than something else?" I understand why I'm confused now. It lies in your earlier statement: You seemed to be implying that since someone cannot calculate a probability it must be random. Am I right? The problem of course, is that you then say that we have eggheads that can do the math, and that (as far as you know) probabilities are calcuable if we know probabilities occur.So either you made a slip up, which is fine, I understand, no problem. Or there isn't a probability involved in mutations, which seems odd to me. Perhaps there is another option I haven't perceived?********end edit*********This message has been edited by Modulous, 05-06-2005 07:37 PMThis message has been edited by Modulous, 05-06-2005 07:39 PM

quote:

---

Do you agree with the abstract?

---

I don't know if I agree with the abstract, because I cannot get past the abstract to find the dang paper. Won't we have to read the paper in order to see how the abstract is derived, before we know if we agree with the abstract?

---

Design Dynamics