|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: THE END OF EVOLUTION? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4512 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Lucy writes
I have no doubt that information theory will kill the TOE. I writeI have no doubt that TOE will eventually kill information theory & all other creationist myths. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3424 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
I have no doubt that TOE will eventually kill information theory & all other creationist myths. Actually, there is a real "information theory" but has nothing to do with creationism and fully supports the ToE and the rest of science (more acurately the information theory does not contradict the ToE). If Lucy wants to propose that this "information theory" contradicts the ToE, than he/she needs to provide specific rationale/evidence to support this. Otherwise it is just another parotted creationist PRATT in which creationists misunderstand and misuse valid scientific theories (many of which are developed by scientists who in no fashion dispute the ToE). Specifically, this idea that information theory contradicts the ToE comes from creationists such as William Dembski. However there are many rebuttals to his notions as shown here: Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, andDembski's \Complex Specied Information" and "A bit confused: creationism and information theory." Skeptical Inquirer 25(2) (2001), 40-42. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4512 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
sorry I left out the quotation marks around information theory. The idea was what creos think not what info theory really is.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
First lose your apriori disposition. Then we'll talk. Next week. You mean a priori dispositions such as differences between species can not be produced by mutations?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
DA writes: Incorrect. You seem to not understand what information is. Information is data which is used to describe the "state" or "status" of something. Information in itself does not exist, without something to which it describes (and since this something exists, it is located within the spacetime of this universe). Data is something an intellegent agent collects. Information is something an intelligent agent imparts.
DA writes: You cannot isolate information from the "something" to which it describes. Take this example: "The bird is blue". The "something" that exists is the bird. The information or data desribing this entity (the bird) is the color "blue". The color "blue" does not exist as a seperate entity unto itself. It is merely a description of how light reflects off of (and is absorbed by) objects. So, blue isn't blue until you understand electromagnetic radiation? I can't appreciate a Van Gough unless I've done a physics degree.
DA writes: The scientific method was developed over millenium as an accumulation of the best practices to learn about the world around us. The scienticfic method was developed by the Muslims during their golden age when the rest of Europe was in their dark age.
DA writes: This is an oversimplification of the scientific method. It also is comprised of qualitative analysis. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
DA writes:
This is a science thread. But by the way when did science ever send anyone to the moon, and back, with a car?
Can your religious book send us to the moon, find cures for AIDS and other delibitating and life threatening diseases, eradicate plagues such a small pox which has killed hundreds of millions of people, discovere new methods of making food more safe, extend the lifespan of humans by over 200%, and increase knowledge of the universe by several thousand fold? DA writes: However, extreme religious fundamentalism which attempts to undermine and water down the very foundations of science, as in the case of vehement creationists like yourself, is a danger to the survival of the whole human race. This just my opinion so take it for what it is worth. DA, I'm not a threat to the human race, believe me. Go and have a meal with your family and friends over Easter.
bluescat48 writes: I have no doubt that TOE will eventually kill information theory & all other creationist myths. Understanding of life is now out of the hands of the naturalists and in the secure hands of real scientists.
Taq writes:
I mean a priori that they do. You mean a priori dispositions such as differences between species can not be produced by mutations? There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 355 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Information is something an intelligent agent imparts. This is nothing in Shannon's formulation of information theory to support this. The only information theory related definitions of information which rely on intelligent agency that I am familiar with are those proposed by creationists such as Werner Gitt. Are you actually interested in discussing information theory or only in making unsupported assertions about information and how information theory can intersect with evolutionary biology? So far you have singularly failed to show any problems for evolution coming from either information theory or thermodynamics. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23175 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
LucyTheApe writes: Data is something an intellegent agent collects. Information is something an intelligent agent imparts. You're using an everyday definition of information. For this discussion we have to use the scientific definition of information. This is from Claude Shannon's landmark paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication that founded the field of information theory:
Shannon writes: The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages 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. In other words, the meaning that is central to your concept of information plays no role in information theory. If you read through the paper you'll see that he also addresses the issue of entropy, which is where the correspondence with 2LOT arises. If you want to talk about information in a scientific sense then this is the type of information you have to talk about. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4512 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Understanding of life is now out of the hands of the naturalists and in the secure hands of real scientists. Real scientists are naturalists. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2618 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Being a Dutchie, I couldn't let this slip:
LucyTheApe writes:
That's Van Gogh, without the U. I can't appreciate a Van Gough unless I've done a physics degree. Anyway... I find it remarkable how far from the actual theories you've strayed. And furthermore make comments that are completely not related to what people are saying to you? Take this one for example:
DA writes:
I mean huh? How does that follow? Can your religious book send us to the moon, find cures for AIDS and other delibitating and life threatening diseases, eradicate plagues such a small pox which has killed hundreds of millions of people, discovere new methods of making food more safe, extend the lifespan of humans by over 200%, and increase knowledge of the universe by several thousand fold?LucyTheApe writes: This is a science thread. But by the way when did science ever send anyone to the moon, and back, with a car? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I mean a priori that they do. Whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor or not it still begs for an answer. Which of the DNA differences between humans and chimps can not be produced by the known mechanisms of mutation? Which of these differences required an intelligent designer, and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3424 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Lucy writes: Myself writes: Incorrect. You seem to not understand what information is. Information is data which is used to describe the "state" or "status" of something. Information in itself does not exist, without something to which it describes (and since this something exists, it is located within the spacetime of this universe). Data is something an intellegent agent collects. Information is something an intelligent agent imparts. Yes and no, there is no requirement that this "data" or "information" has to originate from an intelligent source only that for it to have meaning outside of itself it has to be interpreted by a source of intelligence i.e. humans. This is akin to the often used zen phrase "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound". The answer depends on how you define the word "sound". It is all a matter of semantics. Sound is often defined as the reception and interpretation of low frequency electromagnetic waves in the range of human auditory perception. Therefore, if there is no person/animal to hear the sound than does the sound really exist? Well yes and no. The vibrations of sound actually exist, but there is nothing to interpret these vibrations into meaningful information. So to is the meaning of the word "information" tied to a source of percpetion i.e. the human brain, computer, etc used to interpret it. If there is nothing to interpret this data, the data or information actually exists. However, there is nothing to make meaning of it all. And like sound, information can originate from a non-intelligent and even non-living source.
Lucy writes: Myself writes: You cannot isolate information from the "something" to which it describes. Take this example: "The bird is blue". The "something" that exists is the bird. The information or data desribing this entity (the bird) is the color "blue". The color "blue" does not exist as a seperate entity unto itself. It is merely a description of how light reflects off of (and is absorbed by) objects. So, blue isn't blue until you understand electromagnetic radiation? I can't appreciate a Van Gough unless I've done a physics degree. Huh? No, you missed my meaning completely. Appreciation of art has more to do with nuances of intelligence and communication than it does with mere color perception. Bees can see more colors than humans can, does that mean they have a greater appreciation for art than humans? A human can be a virtual vedgetable and see the nuances between shades of blue. It has more to do with sensatory perception than understanding or knowledge of a subject. Some animals can see more or less colors (and some not at all) than others. Again colors can be said to be a product of our brains interpreting the very minute differences in frequency between electromagnetic radiation collected by light reflected off an object. It really has less to do with intelligence and more to do with sensatory sensativity to light. Like hearing, color perception only makes sense when we talk about something used to intepret this data/information i.e. the brain, artificial intelligence (a computer), etc.
Lucy writes: Myself writes: Lucy writes: The scientific method is good for quantitive analysis. My problem lies with what you guys teach the kids The scientific method was developed over millenium as an accumulation of the best practices to learn about the world around us. The scienticfic method was developed by the Muslims during their golden age when the rest of Europe was in their dark age. Your point? You seemed to be crapping on the scientific method, which is the foundation of all modern scientific inquiry and investigation. Do you have something that trumps the scientific method? Please enlighten us! BTW, to clarify. Are you saying that the Greek scientists/philosophers like Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, etc had nothing to do with helping to lay the groundwork of the scientific method? Granted, the Arabs of the Dark Ages helped add to this foundation but they contributed more by reintroducing the Hellenstic foundations of science to medevial Europe.
Lucy writes: Myself writes: Can your religious book send us to the moon, find cures for AIDS and other delibitating and life threatening diseases, eradicate plagues such a small pox which has killed hundreds of millions of people, discovere new methods of making food more safe, extend the lifespan of humans by over 200%, and increase knowledge of the universe by several thousand fold? This is a science thread. But by the way when did science ever send anyone to the moon, and back, with a car? WTF are you talking about? Where did the car come into play in my statement??? You really need to work on your reading comprehension. So are you saying that we could accomplish any of the above mentioned feats of technology without science? If so, please elaborate.
Lucy writes: DA, I'm not a threat to the human race, believe me. Go and have a meal with your family and friends over Easter. Thanks I will ![]() Lucy writes: Understanding of life is now out of the hands of the naturalists and in the secure hands of real scientists. Um, many (though not all) real scientists are naturalists (if you define naturalism as the philosophy that all phenomena can be defined by natural causes/laws vice supernatural ones). BTW, I have no problem with belief in the supernatural i.e. religion, however, it lies beyond the definition of what science is. Science by its very definition attempts to explain natural phenomena not supernatural phenomena (since supernatural phenomena are capricious in nature and are not subject the laws of logic or cause and effect). Many scientists are religious and believe in the supernatural, however, they do not let there beliefs to interfere with how they conduct scientific inquiry of natural phenomena. It is only when pseudoscientists aka creationists attempt to surplant the established scientific methodolgy and logical inquiry of real science with unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) pseudoscientific methodology do real scientists get ticked off. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Sound is often defined as the reception and interpretation of low frequency electromagnetic waves in the range of human auditory perception. Longitudinal pressure waves. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23175 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
DevilsAdvocate writes: Sound is often defined as the reception and interpretation of low frequency electromagnetic waves in the range of human auditory perception. Sound is not an electromagnetic phenomenon. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3424 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Sorry, I mispoke. You are correct. Sound is a pressure wave of molecules (commonly air & water molecules) not an electromagnetic wave. However, my analogy still stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Chopped liver signing off. Good night folks.
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025