Summations Only

PaulK my friend,
I am not a mathematician by any sense of the word but believe that it is not that the unfair coin posses less information but my understanding is that the unfair coin is more predictable. Therefore, it takes less information to transmit the result of the toss. I have received some criticism that I am using the term information incorrectly, when I refer to the message possessing more information. This criticism may be justified so I have been using the term negentropy instead.Anyway, I am trying to express that a more predictable message would posses less entropy thus the transmission of that message would require less bits.What is your opinion?

RAZD my friend,
Entropy is not my favorite subject so I will try and get back onto the theme of your original post How do novel features evolve?I will ask if novel features can evolve at all, given that there are not enough mutations to create them. Let me ask the following questionAre there enough random mutations to create new innovative features between humans and chimps?To illustrate my point, I will calculate de novo the time needed for the supposed Pan Human divergence with current findings of mutation rate and divergence between chimp and human genes.
Commonly the date accepted by evolutionists is 5 million years. I will show that 5 million years is impossibly short given the actual evidence.
The formula comes from a paper by Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell and was originally used to estimate the needed mutation rate per generation to change a common ancestor hominid into a human in 5 million years. I believe the formulation arrived at 175 mutations per generation but there has been an empirical adjustment to the calculated rate of only 60 mutations per generation (about 1/3). In addition, the mutation divergence of autosomal Pseudogenes has been raised slightly too about 3% between chimps and humans.
The formula k= 2(u)t+4Ne(u) (variables defied below)
My 3% is form

quote:

---

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

​

https://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/34219/

---

60 mutations per generation from:http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/...d_of_human_mutation.aspThe Average Human Has 60 New Genetic Mutations - SlashdotI will work the equation in reverse inserting the known mutation rate per generation in humans and the newer pseudogene divergence.t= .5(k/u-4Ne)t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 3%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9) (60/7x10^9)From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic(t) In generations is 1.65 million or 33 million years since the human chimp divergenceIn other words, new evidence in genetic divergence between chimps and humans and the measured mutation rate in humans has pushed the possible divergence back to 33 million years. You cannot change a monkey into a man.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

I rather not dwell on entropy but I cannot let you go on thinking I have no point.My point is that lower entropy implies that the message has more information. I can see now that my original argument posed no direct explanation of a correlation. Let me make another attempt at that point by appealing to two thought experiments (Maxwell’s demon and Szilard’s engine).These two thought experiments relate how information can lower entropy.

quote:

---

Szilard's engine

​

A neat physical thought-experiment demonstrating how just the possession of information might in principle have thermodynamic consequences was established in 1929 by Le Szilrd, in a refinement of the famous Maxwell's demon scenario.

---

Let me go a bit further with this thought and mention a direct mathematical correlation between entropy and information by Brillouin. It is a refinement on the negentropy/information idea.

quote:

---

I = K ln P

​

where I denotes information, K is a constant, and P is the probability of the outcome. Brillouin reasons that with these types of probability arguments, it enables one to solve the problem of Maxwell’s demon and to show a very direct connection between information and entropy and that the thermodynamic entropy measures the lack of information about a physical system. Moreover, according to Brillouin, whenever an experiment is performed in the laboratory, it is paid for by an increase in entropy, and a generalized Carnot principle states that the price paid in increase of entropy must always be larger than the amount of information gained. Information, according to Brillouin, corresponds to negative entropy or negentropy, a term he coined.

---

So tell me again how information does not correlate inversely to entropy? Probability of the message increases, information in the message increases, entropy decreases.

Hi again Wounded King,
I found this paper interesting in that it relies implicitly on the pre existence of the genetic code. So how did the duplicated gene sequence occur in the first place given no original gene sequence?

quote:

---

Based on cytological observations of chromosomal duplications, Haldane (1933) and Muller (1935) already hypothesized in the 1930s that new gene functions may emerge from refashioned copies of old genes, highlighting for the first time the potential importance of gene duplication for the process of new gene origination.
Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes - PMC

---

Remember Haldane’s fixation of new functional genes only happens one every 300 generations. This would provide only about 1700 new beneficial functions fixed in humans since the Pan Human divergence! Are there only about 1700 functional mutations between humans and chimps? This is known as Haldane’s dilemma.This paper only speaks from the assumption that common descent is unquestionably correct. Nothing is further from the truth.I found this paper rather thin in explanations. However, I thank you for the citation.

Wounded King my friend,To set your mind at ease about my calculation I went back to the paper I cited (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic) and went threw one of there calculations comparing results. I did the following:

quote:

---

t= number of generations 250k (Generation =20 years) (5x10^6/20)
(from 5 million years)
k= as variable
Ne= effective size of population ~10^4
(u)=mutation rate 2.5x10^-8 or 175 new mutations/generation (175/7x10^9)
Please note the units for mutation rate.

​

k= 2ut + 4 Neu

---

I got a (k) value (or average autosomal pseudogene difference) of 1.26%; but at this point I will claim a higher value for (k) but only about 3%.... This seems to line up with the findings of that older paper (.6% to 2.6%) and new research.My 3% again is form

quote:

---

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

​

https://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/34219/

---

Sorry to say this but the junk DNA has been reevaluated upward. Some articles are even suggesting a greater divergence. Alos it is important to note that in the Chimp genome project approximately (.7Gb) of that genome failed to align at all. If researchers fail to figure out how to align the extra .7Gb the total divergence would add up to an additional 22.6% divergence. So you disagree with Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell? Funny how the best authorities in the evolutionary field are discarded if there is any kind of problem showing common descent could be wrong.The evolutionist has a lot of work to do.

Wounded King my friend, So, where did they originally come from? A classic chicken or egg scenario. I like that Grant and Flake funny. I read this and it is nothing but a hand wave (there is no real rebuttal to Haldane’s calculations). I used Haldane because he is an authority, criticized but not disproved, he still stands in the field. Maybe you would like to discuss Nunney’s simulation.Thanks for the citations

Dr. Adaquate You the MAN. Oops this is not politically correct. You the self empowered generic individual.

Dr. Adequate my friend Yes there are two different formulations but they are most certainly relatable. Consider Gibbs algorithm and resemblance to Gibbs entropy.

quote:

---

See Relationship to thermodynamic entropy on this page

​

Information_entropy

---

Actually, you have not demonstrated any validity to your objections by either citation or any particular principles. On the other hand, I have shown a relationship between entropy and information that you emphatically denied existed. I do not participate in this forum to win an argument as a matter of fact I learn more by losing the argument try putting some substance behind those objections.

Wounded King my friend,My 3% again is form Here is the punch line If you disagree with the 3% fine here is the calculation again using 1.26% (argue with that figure all you want but your argument would be with Nachman).t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 1.26%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9) (60/7x10^9)this still give a divergence time of 680k generations and 13.6 million years which blows away all of the evolutionist fossil paradigm. Common descent is nonsense.

Dr. Adequate my friend In 1993 Walter ReMine’s, book "The Biotic Message, Haldane’s calculations were upheld and verified. The evolutionist has never presented a reasonable objection to Haldane.

Percy my friendYou seem to like the wiki so here is something to chew on.

quote:

---

Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication"

---

What is missing, is less, if it is less random or has more information in it (the random variable).Your friend Zaius

Well done RAZD From a creationist standpoint, we know that the evolutionist has always confused new novel traits arising with the process of adaptation.New novel features beg the question how point mutations lengthen genomes to code for these new novel traits. The very best the evolutionist has been able to come up with is gene duplications that incorporate point mutations to produce novel gene segments. The question the evolutionist has never answered is where the original gene sequence came from in the first place. The case of dog diversity is a perfect example of what I am talking about; all dogs have the same sized genome, it has not grown in size even when new traits appear.About a previous postConcerning mutations in dogs, I will ask what kind of point mutation would occur in dogs to give them webbed feet and why webbed feet would get fixed in a population not under immediate selection for webbed feet. Just about, everyone can make up convoluted scenarios that sound reasonable but evolution always fails in the light of reason and empirical findings.I brought up two cases that are examples posed by evolutionists of new traits arising in E. coli and Flavobacterium. As I pointed out that both these cases were examples of DNA open reading frame shifts causing E. coli to metabolize citrate and the Flavobacterium to us nylon as a food source. Definitely not new novel functions if you examine the actual evidence.I would also like to bring up a contemporary of Darwin who observed the same evidence in nature that Darwin did but came to a very different conclusion. Concerning Edward Blyth

quote:

---

Thus with Blyth, natural selection is a homeostatic mechanism to prevent change. Blyth was not the only one to use this argument.4 Yet Darwin never explicitly addressed the possibility that natural selection could thwart evolution and he presented natural selection as a developmental mechanism.

---

Again, I will ask the evolutionist if no new spontaneous segments of genes arise in genomes how are species gaining unique sequences of DNA and novel new functions. By unique new segments, I am not referring to genome duplications.

quote:

---

Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.

---

Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information? - How Evolution Works | HowStuffWorksEvolutionists have no evidence that new novel traits have ever arisen besides the fact that the genome is built to adapt. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.