|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited) | |||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:That's true, but the rocks do not represent information, they represent themselves. quote:The point remains that you do not understand what information is. Bunch of rocks in not information. Bunch of rocks in not knowledge. If you want to use those rocks to create some knowledge about them than fine. But the rocks did not create knowledge about them. They are simply there. quote:But than the last case is no information at all. We did not agree on any syntax. We did not agree that you are going to give me information about the rocks, therefore they do not represent anything. quote:There is no such thing as "Gitt Information". He just explained what information is in general. quote:You didn't explain anything. You just said that he was a nobody in scientific community. Is that an explanation? quote:I never said that. Information theory can be applied to biology. It's just the particular model from that theory that it can't. And that's Shannon model. And why do you keep quoting that part about the alleles? Pure number of genes tell you nothing about how many biological functions they code for.
quote:I knwo it's in general for God's sake! I have been telling you that for the last 20 pages. And yes, it covers a lot of aspects of information, including Shannon, knowledge, and meaning. And those last two you said had nothing to do with information. You were clearly wrong. It also doesn't have to mention Gitt. He is not well known as Shannon.
quote:Again, there is not such thing as "Gitt Information". quote:Saying that he is nobody and doesn't publish in PR articles is not a refutation. quote:Well I am talking about what information is in general when I'm talking about Gitt. quote:For teh third time. There is not such thing as "Gitt Information". quote:He doesn't have to, he is talking in general. To quantify the first three levels of information we can use Dembski's model of CSI. Using this model we can clearly see that mutations do not generate CSI. quote:Well you are obviously wrong. This is only a theoretical model that does not work that good. The problem is in the noise. There is to much of those who are not as fit as others, so on average the have more chance than the fit ones to reproduce. Therefore effectively shutting down natural selection for beneficial mutations. Some may pass if the pressure is really hard, but not if it is relaxed. Just a moment... The Crow paper talks about human fitness deteriorating 1-2% in one generation. If natural selection was so great than we would not have this problem. Crow collected data on mutation rates an accumulation of them in the genome. He came to the conclusion that the human genome is deteriorating. The other problem are near neutral mutations (NNM). They are deleterious, and by definition so weak that natural selection does not select against them. Therefore they keep accumulating in the genome. Over time they cause genetic meltdown and the species dies. NCBI This is discussed in the Kimura paper. See the graph? Notice the darker part of the graph. It's the NNMs. They keep accumulating in the genome.
quote:And those slight changes do not lead over time to totally new functions. If evolution was true single celled organisms evolved to people. Over vast amounts of time they gained a lot of information. They gained new functions. The only problem is those slight changes are accumulating, but not in a way to get you such a change that you see between a single celled organims and a human. quote:And this is where you are painfully wrong again. Evoluton has got to get you new biological functions if you are going to evolve from a bacteria to a man. Yes, the odds that something is going to happen is 1:1. But in this case, you are not looking for anything. You are looking for something. Even though evolution isn't. That's why I said fitness and new functions are not correlated. There is only so much of biological functions you can have. Some sequences of nucleotides do not code for any meaningful biological functions. That is, a vast majority does not, from the vast amount of all possible sequences. Only a tiny minority does. So you see, you need to get to those relevant biologically meaningful sequences, with an evolutionary algorithm that does not search for them! The 3 billion base pairs of human genome go something like this: "GATCGACGACGATTATGCATCTAGCCGCGATTACTAGCTACG..." This is biologically relevat sequence. Let's say it codes for an eye. Just an example. Now imagine that you had this kind of genome: "TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT..." You do understand that 3 billion Ts is not going to code for anything. It has absolutly no biological function. If the whole genome was just 3 billion Ts, there would be no people. Because in the genetic code nothing is represented with just Ts. It's the same thing if you wrote 30 Ts in English language. It's meningles, it represents nothing. So again, the conclusion is, that evolution is as good from searching the new biological functions as random chance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I never said that. I said it can be fine tuning. quote:They do in vast majority of cases. Even if they don't. Even if they just damage the structure slightly, next few mutations will damage it enough to destroy the function. quote:No, it doesn't have to be an ideal. A new house is an ideal. If you throw a rock at it and damage it, it lost some of it structure. It's not an ideal anymore. But a further rock throw, and damage to the house is still more of a net loss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:This is a correction I would like to make. CSI does not take into account semantic information. But it does not exclude it either. quote:You could that say that their color is also information about them. Clearly you could pick anything about those rocks and call it information. But the point is that for a number "3" to be recognized as "three" we need an agreement. This agreement is the syntax. Rocks by themself do not produce syntax. quote:He is talking about what information is in general. There is nobody who does not accept his view and has any understanding about information. That doesn't mean that his model is supposed to remove Shannon's model. Only those who thing that Gitt is trying to remove Shannon's model think that. quote:You misunderstood what Gitt did. He didn't actually build a new model froms cratch. He just used various well known aspects of information and explained them. He gave them context. He is talking about what information is in general. quote:He isn't suppoesd to quantify it. We know from observations that matter by itself has no teleology, and we never saw matter by itself create any meaning. Therefore he concluded that matter can't create inforamtion. This is called an inference to the best explanation. quote:As you saw, I made a correction to what CSI is. Dembski said he is not using the semantic aspect while calculationg CSI. But that doesn't mean that semantics are lacking. What the specific protein represent is it's semantic part. quote:Like I said, yes, in theory. But not in real life. Deleterious mutations keep accumulating is spite of natural selection. quote:What he said is that if we had such a society we would be safe from such mutations, but we are not. Even in drosophila, mutations are accumulationg, and drosophila have no advanced technology. quote:They are not neutral, they are slighty neutral. Big difference. It means that they are slightly deleterious, but are not removed by natural selection. And yes, they are accumulating. Yes, slightly, but given enough time, they will cause a mutational meltdown. And that is the extinction of a population. quote:You keep missing the point. Imagine that you had 10 cars. All were the same. You removed a part on 5 of your cars that made it go only under 200 km/h. Without this blockage, it can go up to 250 km/h. And you decided to test all cars and select only those that go over 200 km/h. It is obvious that you will end up with only 5 cars, because of their increase in fitness. But they will not be having any new functions. Becasue they fitness in speed was not correlated with new parts. The same thing would be if you modified a device in your car to give the motor of your car more gas than usual. That would make it go faster. And now you perform the same selection as before, and tell me, in what time is this process going to give your car a rocket engine? Never obviously. Becasue giving your car's engine more gas through a modified pipe, and increasing it's fitnes, is not correlated with building a new part, like a rocked engine. Or consider this example: Imagine that you had a lot of blocks with letters. And you had all the letters from A to Z + the space character. Not only that but you had 100 blocks for each character. Now imagine that all the blocks were red. The characters on the blocks have a tint of white. The tint ranging in steps of 1 and it's going from 0 to 100. The amount of "0" tint meaning you can't actually see the letter since there is no tint of white, the whole block is red. And the amount of "100" means the letter is fully white, and you can read it with no problem. Now, imagine that you tried to make a sentence with those blocks. You are to pick randomly letters from that bunch of blocks. Now, you decide that since you can't really read anything below the tint of "10" you will remove those blocks, and not put them in your sentence. This is the selection part of your process. Now my question is, what kind of sentence will you get? Will it look something like this: "LOIS, BRING ME ANOTHER BEER".Or something likE this: "EDJD FJUDUDDDD DEPM FUDEJF ZE E". I think that it is obvious that it will look like the lower one. Why is that? It's obivous. Even though you used an evolutionary algorithm, you still wound up with a meaningless sentence. That is becasue the tint of the color on the block was not correlated with any meaninglful sentence. It had no correlation with new sentences. Yes, you removed the bad blcks under the tint of 10, that you could not read, but your selection was not going toward any meaningful text. The same thin applies to biological evolution. Mutations are random. Some mutations will optimize the function a bit more, some will degrade it. Those that degrade it, will be selected out. Those that make the function work more optimally, will get selected form. But this will not get you any new biological functions, because natural selection is not celecting for them. And fitness is not correlated with new biological functions in this way.
quote:No, it doesn't. It increases fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But I never said that ALL mutations are loss of information. Is switching your light swithc to OFF a loss of information? No, it's not. It's tuning it to a position you want. If you want to turn of the lights you could also cut the wires from the switch and get the same result. Only this time this would be a reduction in information. quote:Most of them are deleterious. But not all of them. The amount of information stays the same if the structure was not damaged. quote:Again, biological functions are calculated by CSI. quote:You improved your house. You didn't try to do all thet work by throwing rocks, now did you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But we can't. Human genome is degrading, together with all other living genomes. quote:I meant new CSI. Not Shannon information. quote:Who says we can? We can't. Not all information is gone. Is their whole genome destroyed? Obviously not. quote:A mutation that has no effect at all would be neutral. quote:Yes they did. They lost's the ability they had. quote:No, it is a modifed version of a previous gene. Modified by transposons. quote:What are you talking about? quote:Only in Shannon's model, not in CSI. And you can't use Shannon's model since it only uses statistical approach to information. quote:Because to gain CSI you need 400 bits. Second, Frame shifts are modifications in already existing information. They are either fine-tuning or deleterious changes. quote:I used it becasue it explains what information is in general. quote:Becasue it explains how to define information in telecommunications. quote:Do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:How do you know? quote:How do you know? quote:Because it is. It's explaining what information is in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:There is no information. They had the first version of the gene. quote:Genetic clocks are based on an assumption that the organism actually did evolve. They are wrong. quote:Molecular clocks do not correlate with fossil records. quote:What else is used as evidence? quote:Again, it's not new CSI. quote:So what? The new enzyome doesn't perform a new function. http://www.thedesignoflife.net/...ce-a-day/View/Default.aspx
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Fine. Explain what exactly did you not like about it. quote:I know it is. I never said it wasn't. Gitt wasn't making any new model of information. He was taking all the existing concepts of information, and explaining how they work in general. quote:Where exactly did Gitt lie? quote:That's true. But he wasn't doing that, now was he? If you think he was, than explain how.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I did, several times. Read this. EvC Forum: Message Peek
quote:Who doesn't agree with me? Show me those biologists that do not agree with me. quote:I don't care what you think! Are you stupid or something? And no, I'm not insulting you, I'm just honestly asking if you are a stupid person, and you have trouble understanding written words. Becasue you keep talking about religion and I keep talking about science. And I also keep telling you I'm not interested in religion. I don't give a damn if you belive me or not. Maybe you're a satanist? Are you? Are you working for Satan? Are you rpomoting evolution because you worship Satan? How do I know you're not? Prove to me you're not worshiping Satan! Do you see how stupid this sounds? Well that's how you sound for the past month.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5140 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:You are acting stupid. I asked you to tell me what exactly did you consider wrong with Gitt's work. Answer my question. quote:In which part? Explain why. quote:Explain why he is not "doing" information theory. Cite me where he said that the proved anything. quote:How is he redefining information? Explain in detail.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024