Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,281 Year: 5,538/9,624 Month: 563/323 Week: 60/143 Day: 3/19 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 177 of 302 (319499)
06-09-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Wounded King
06-09-2006 10:20 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
There are a number of papers, not to mention simple maths, which can show that Shannon information can increase through a number of processes including duplication at various genomic level up to an including full genome duplications.
I'm growing weary quickly...
That's great! That's just wonderful.... I think all of us knew that duplication is possible. I want to see additional info in the genome. Not slight variation wihtin kind, where we see the same amount of information rearanged into a unique individual organism.
This is a complete waste of time...
Oh great, now he's back! The guy who says all information is abstraction. I see he just sent another abstraction... better check it out before I leave for work...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 10:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 11:01 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 11:22 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 178 of 302 (319501)
06-09-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by nwr
06-09-2006 10:27 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
One thing you can take to the bank... I won't consult you when seeking the truth...
Oh man by the way, I was 79,870 lbs yesturday and I hit this squirrel. Poor little guy never saw a thing. They're cute, but they're just not too bright!
Edited by Rob, : having a good time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by nwr, posted 06-09-2006 10:27 AM nwr has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 201 of 302 (319922)
06-10-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
06-09-2006 10:56 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Technical mumbo jumbo, dumbo...
I confess that particularly relating to one's definition of information, and further more, how one then chooses to interpret that information plays a large role in attempting to decide for oneself what science is, and what it means.

Everything after this point is off topic. Please do not reply.

It is the ultimate honesty test
Now, I have the sense (and you do not have to agree), that I was doing quite well when containing my arguments within philosophical boundaries. Several of you such as Frog guts: ...As well as Road Kill ...Advanced the argument that all of this information is abstraction anyway.
I think the conclusion to those debates tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
In my maiden voyage into this sea of humanity known as the Evc forum, I laid out my entire argument for what the proper interpretation of reality is.
I was hoping to challenge those who interpret the quantum to be evidence that we create reality by interpreting truth for ourselves.
The whole point is that we can interpret what we want to believe into anything. But when Christ spoke, He was able to call our bluff and force us to accept or crucify Him.
He showed that light is not just physical, but that Gods Spirit is logical and reasonable, and conveys the ultimate objective reality that many would prefer to believe is unknowable.
This debate over evoution and creation is irrelevant if in the final analysis, truth is unknowable. The only person I know of who adamantly spoke the truth, claimed to be the truth, and professed not that you can know the truth, but that you shall know the truth.
For those of us who do know Him, that's a done deal. For those of you who will, I pray that it is in this life...
Sorry for meandering off topic. We all know how broad this discussion can be. In the end, it encompasses all of reality...
That's what we're talking about here boys and girls... Reality!
Let's give it the respect it deserves...
Rob
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 10:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 12:55 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 06-10-2006 4:02 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 209 of 302 (320087)
06-10-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
06-09-2006 1:19 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
IIRC the human genome is about 2.9 billion pairs while maize is only 2.5 billion base pair. Chimps have about 2.8 billion base pairs. The lungfish genome is about 35 times the size of the human genome and Amoeba dubia has more than 600 billion...
My apologies jar, I missed that entirely the first time. I was so caught up in my assumption that simple life = simple DNA sequences, that it did not even register...
That is interesting isn't it...
So what's the deal, are men evolving into Amoebas?
I am forced to agree with you on one point... irrespective of whether one believes in evolution or special creation, the amount of information in the genome (however one defines it) does appear irrellavent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 06-09-2006 1:19 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 6:31 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 212 of 302 (320111)
06-10-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by jar
06-10-2006 6:31 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
We don't have a clue. But we are evolving. Remember, Evolution can best be seen looking backwards. It's a history of what did happen.
I disagree... We're devolving!
Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We're coming undone!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 6:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 6:50 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 215 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 6:51 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 292 of 302 (322759)
06-17-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
06-09-2006 5:53 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Sorry Percy, it wasn't message 180 ( http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic ) It was this I wanted to respond to.
This is my question... I concede that the amount of information is irrelavant as to the complexity of the organism (i.e. the amoeba in question).
Is the complexity of the information relavant in your opinion?
In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?
In your opinion, does that complexity in the genetic information of the higher animals originate from a random process? or do you assume a pupose or design somehow other than by a pre-creation designer?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 5:53 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by kuresu, posted 06-17-2006 11:13 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2006 11:37 PM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 295 of 302 (322776)
06-18-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by NosyNed
06-17-2006 11:37 PM


Re: Measuring complexity
I think I understand, but have no number to give you. I only offer the concept which is intuitively recognizable without such a value.
1+1=2.
What is the square root of 4,567,896,345?
Differnet scales of problems no doubt! However, it is the same simplicity of 1+1=2 that offers the 'reason' or logic, for both problems.
Very interesting regardless...
If I may interject a metaphysical analogy to this observation, perhaps you may find it interesting as well:
An excerpt from an unpublished article of mine called, 'The Fanatic!'
Now, If there is a God (and most believe so), He would be the truth. Or, the truth would be of God; that is, begotten by God; part of God; a dimension of God. The truth would be God. It is very much just the way addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are a dimension of mathematics; and in fact they are math. They are not the totality of math, but they will lead us to the higher mathematics faithfully.
Continuing along this line, the truth in math (the logic of it) is the same in the lower mathematics, as it is in the higher. There is simply more or less information when comparing the two. They have a different function. Trying to put a value on either is really a rather individual and subjective project that requires a lack of the very essence of logic that opens into objectivity. For objectivity is itself the nature of logic. Logic has an objective. In that sense the lower math is just as pure and wonderful as the higher. I make note of this for obvious reasons; the Son is just as beautiful as the Father.
Together they are God, and as individuals they are God. There is no better than, but only love for each other and their mutual function and purpose. In this way, their Spirit is the very essence of logic and is also God. Jesus spoke of the abundant life; it is eternal and is therefore absolute. It is unlike our life that is a bound and limited life; limited by food, water, air, and death (entropy). Jesus spoke about having food that we new nothing about, living water, the clouds of heaven, and eternal life (the absence of death).
This whole manner of illustrating God by use of mathematic symbolism may provide a look into another mystery. In Mathew, chapter 12; 31, Jesus says that all blasphemy and sin will be forgiven except blasphemy of the spirit. I can’t help but think of the Spirit in the confines of our mathematical example as the essence of God. In our mathematics, the logic itself is to be revered and embraced. However, I think we must be careful with keeping our example too close to our minds, as it does not very well express the wholeness and power of the real thing. Our example is only a concept within the intellect, and the Spirit of God is very much alive and Holy. We should not confuse them.
just thinking...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2006 11:37 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by NosyNed, posted 06-18-2006 1:18 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 296 of 302 (322783)
06-18-2006 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Wounded King
06-07-2006 9:14 AM


Sorry it took so long
We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information.
*snip*
When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur.
Would you care to furnish any evidence to support these contentions?
I finally found my source... Specifically his name is Dr. Lee Spetner. But in addition, there is Michael Denton, Werner Gitt, and Don Batten.
The arguments Are compliled on a DVD documentary called, From a Frog to a Prince. Produced by Keziah, and available from Answers in Genesis .
I know it is not your kind of source... but who can say what the truth is, when the truth is absolute?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 9:14 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by nwr, posted 06-18-2006 8:24 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 298 of 302 (322786)
06-18-2006 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by NosyNed
06-18-2006 1:18 AM


Re: Measuring complexity
(and making up a bit of definition of my own)I would say that in that sense they all have very close to zero specificity. So close as to be safely approximated by zero
Thank you for approximating an answer. unfortunately that does not qualify as truth. So... touche'. I offer none myself!
Fortunately for me, I do not need proof that we (as life on earth) are devolving, as oppossed to evolving. Your photograph speaks volumes...
I imagine that's it for me...Oh well, I'm tired of the games anyhow. My Lord was right... wipe the dust off my feet lest they deystroy me. Pride is so contagious. I must flee!
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : Offended that I'm offended!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by NosyNed, posted 06-18-2006 1:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5967 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 299 of 302 (322788)
06-18-2006 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Question!
Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End
Thanks for that Crue. I used to catch that old fart on the radio and was enamored with Him. I don't know about the 2012 stuff, but hey... the old man was good! I'll read it...
(sorry I self destructed on the last post... I'm only human!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM Crue Knight has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by nwr, posted 06-18-2006 8:28 AM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024