|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: THE END OF EVOLUTION? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2612 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Lucy writes:
Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with this, what's your point?
A salamander is a salamander, not a bear. You seem to make a claim that I don't understand 2Ltd.
It's obvious you don't. Edited by Huntard, : Spellings I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
LucyTheApe writes: A salamander is a salamander, not a bear. No one is claiming a ring species with a salamander at one end and a bear at the other. Could you please try to make sense?
LucyTheApe writes: You seem to make a claim that I don't understand 2Ltd. What I said was, "But you're again forgetting the topic. While arguing that evolution isn't possible you made a number of confused claims about 2LOT, entropy and information. Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful?" It's difficult to maintain a discussion if you're not going to respond to what people say. Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful or not? If yes, great! If not why not? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful or not? If yes, great! If not why not? Your message 150 was confusing. You're getting data mixed up with information. Maybe googles of information are being produced every day, but only by the creative forces of human intelligence. Was it helpful? It didn't make sense!
Huntard writes:
LTA writes:
A salamander is a salamander, not a bear. Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with this, what's your point? My point is that the term 'species' is arbitrary. It doesn't matter how selective a system is, it doesn't change a cow into a whale. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
My point is that the term 'species' is arbitrary. It doesn't matter how selective a system is, it doesn't change a cow into a whale. It won't change a particular cow into a whale, and a cow will not give birth to a whale, in fact, that would be the refutation of evolution you're seeking. What can happen is many different changes to many different groups of cows over millions of years such that a whale-like species finally develops. In fact, that's pretty close to what the fossil record shows happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Maybe googles of information are being produced every day, but only by the creative forces of human intelligence. I think that Herrn Fraunhofer, Bunsen, and Kirchhoff would all disagree with you, had they not all died over a century ago. The Sun is not so intelligent, despite being bright, and those gentlemen decoded a bunch of the information it produces every day to determine what elements are in its photosphere. And other scientists learned about its magnetic fields, temperatures, up-and-down motions......all of it from Dumb Information contained in its spectra. None from Creative Forces on the sun. Edited by Coragyps, : tpyo Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Coragyps writes: The Sun is not so intelligent, despite being bright, and those gentlemen decoded a bunch of the information it produces every day to determine what elements are in its photosphere. And other scientists learned about its magnetic fields, temperatures, up-and-down motions......all of it from Dumb Information contained in its spectra. None from Creative Forces on the sun. The sun reveals itself, intelligent humans create information! There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3555 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
The sun reveals itself, intelligent humans create information! Intelligent humans interpret information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Perdition writes: Intelligent humans interpret information. Intelligent humans interpret data. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Perdition writes: What can happen is many different changes to many different groups of cows over millions of years such that a whale-like species finally develops. In fact, that's pretty close to what the fossil record shows happened. Anything is possible in the land of fairytales. Bones in the dirt indicate that organisms were quickly covered with mud before they could decompose, that's all, anything else is fantasy. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2612 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Lucy writes:
Not really. Unless you mean the creo's definition.
My point is that the term 'species' is arbitrary. It doesn't matter how selective a system is, it doesn't change a cow into a whale.
Again, no one would disagree with you there. You're still not making sense with this as a response to the existence of ring species, though. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
LucyTheApe writes: Percy writes: Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful or not? If yes, great! If not why not? Your message 150 was confusing. You're getting data mixed up with information. This is a good starting point, but first we need to have at least one ground rule. You might recall that I pointed you at Shannon's landmark paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication that founded the field of information theory, and I quoted to you the part that made clear the distinction between information and meaning, here it is again:
Shannon writes: Frequently the messages [information] have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. So the ground rule is that if you're going to make claims about information theory, as you did when you claimed that information and entropy would invalidate evolution, then you have to use the actual for-real definition of information theory. You can't just go making things up willy-nilly while ignoring explanations. Your failure to post substantive responses is how we've gotten to this point where I find that after many explanations that you found them confusing. You have to engage the discussion. If someone posts something you don't understand, say so, right then. Don't let the conversation go on for another 20 posts until it finally becomes apparent that you're not really following things. In this case we find that the reason you didn't understand Message 150 is because you didn't understand Message 138 before that, or Message 127 before that where I first cited Shannon. Success in debate is not measured by how well you succeed in not understanding what other people say. I suggest that you go back and read those messages again now, Message 127, Message 138 and finally Message 150, and let me know what parts of it you don't understand. You don't have to accept it, we're just trying to reach the point where you understand what is being said. In information theory, data and information are synonyms. You've been using the word information incorrectly. You should be using the word "meaning" when you say "information". You said in Message 136 that information is useless unless it has meaning, but as the Shannon paper explains, meaning is not part of information. Meaning is independent of information. Meaning is what intelligent entities like ourselves attach to information, and meaning is irrelevant to the information problem. If you're intent on ignoring these facts about information then it won't be possible to have a discussion with you. Post as much as you like, but if you ignore reality then any claims you make won't have any meaning in the real world.
Maybe googles of information are being produced every day, but only by the creative forces of human intelligence. As Coragyps has already pointed out with his apt example, our Sun produces billions of bits of information every second. We didn't create the information about the Sun's spectrum. We didn't create the information about the Sun's magnetic fields. We didn't create the information about sunspots. The Sun created this information all by itself without any help from us. All we intelligent beings are doing is recording the information produced by the Sun. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
LucyTheApe writes: Intelligent humans interpret data. To express what you're trying to say correctly, it should read, "Intelligent humans interpret data or information (they're synonyms) to create meaning." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: To express what you're trying to say correctly, it should read, "Intelligent humans interpret data or information (they're synonyms) to create meaning." Data and information are not synonymous. You keep referring me back to Shannon. Shannon's work dealt with systems of message transmission already in place. With a language and alphabet already established. That is, a message is generated, coded and sent, data is received and converted back into the message, in this sense the data is information, it is preconceived, ordered and intentional. To gather data from the sun, document it and write a book about it is the process of creating information. Whether the information makes sense or draws correct conclusions is irrelevant. The sun doesn't send a preconceived message, we draw conclusions from our observations. If you want to talk about Shannon's information in regards to DNA, then you have to assume an information source, a coder and a decoder, non of which matter alone can produce. ![]() There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: As Coragyps has already pointed out with his apt example, our Sun produces billions of bits of information every second. We didn't create the information about the Sun's spectrum. We didn't create the information about the Sun's magnetic fields. We didn't create the information about sunspots. The Sun created this information all by itself without any help from us. All we intelligent beings are doing is recording the information produced by the Sun. Are you saying that an inanimate object, has developed the ability to use Boolean logic? Information requires intelligence, tell me how I am wrong, please. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Percy writes: You said in Message 136 that information is useless unless it has meaning, but as the Shannon paper explains, meaning is not part of information. Meaning is mathematically unquantifiable. You don't need meaning when dealing with the engineering problems of message transfer, as Shannon was.
Meaning is what intelligent entities like ourselves attach to information,.. Information is what intelligent beings use to communicate meaning.
If you're intent on ignoring these facts about information then it won't be possible to have a discussion with you. Post as much as you like, but if you ignore reality then any claims you make won't have any meaning in the real world. Percy, I think it is you who doesn't understand the facts of information, not me. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025