Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 1:29 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
 Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Creation/Evolution Miscellany

# Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis

Author Topic:   Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 61 of 80 (531768) 10-19-2009 5:48 PM Reply to: Message 59 by NosyNed10-19-2009 5:25 PM

Re: Weighing DNA
I guess I had the same question that Mr. Jack did for JonF, but the way I was going to phrase it was to ask him about the informational equivalent to his fulcrum. His fulcrum answers the question of which has more mass because gravity handily provides this means of differentiation for us, but what is the equivalent differentiator for the amount of information? He needs something that, continuing the analogy, can weigh bits.

We know what information is, it's measured in bits, and so I can see no other method besides quantifying the bits to determine which has more information. Until shown otherwise I don't believe any other method exists.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 10-19-2009 5:25 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2009 5:55 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply Message 63 by JonF, posted 10-19-2009 5:56 PM Percy has responded

Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 62 of 80 (531769) 10-19-2009 5:55 PM Reply to: Message 61 by Percy10-19-2009 5:48 PM

Re: Weighing DNA
 We know what information is, it's measured in bits, and so I can see no other method besides quantifying the bits to determine which has more information. Until shown otherwise I don't believe any other method exists.

But we don't need this other method to be produced. That's the beauty of the argument.

It applies to any measurement of "information" that satisfies the axioms.

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 5:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3

 Message 63 of 80 (531770) 10-19-2009 5:56 PM Reply to: Message 61 by Percy10-19-2009 5:48 PM

Re: Weighing DNA
I was just pointing out that "you must be able to assign a numeric value to information" is not necessarily true. If there exists a way of ordering information in the manner I "weighed" the information, then you can detect an increase or lack thereof in information. I don't know of a way to do this in the real world, but I also do not know that there is [b]no[b] way to do it. My lack of imagination is not evidence.

So "you must be able to assign a numeric value to information" is not true a priori, it requires justification. Much better just to ask how to detect an increase in information, which covers all bases.

 This message is a reply to: Message 61 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 5:48 PM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 64 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 8:31 PM JonF has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 64 of 80 (531780) 10-19-2009 8:31 PM Reply to: Message 63 by JonF10-19-2009 5:56 PM

Re: Weighing DNA
I think we pretty much agree. We can't know that no such method exists, but I would add that neither can we just presume that one does exist.

About not needing actual numeric values, no argument there, either. Variables like x are fine. But statements like x<y have a numeric foundation. If we're going to make statements like Idna1<Idna2 then we need some sort of basis for performing the comparison.

If the argument is that if there's a mutation that can decrease information that therefore there must be a mutation that can restore it again, then I think creationists would probably accept this. But as Mr. Jack has explained, they would consider that to be a restoration of information that was there at creation. A mutation that could increase information beyond what was present at the beginning isn't possible.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 63 by JonF, posted 10-19-2009 5:56 PM JonF has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 70 by cavediver, posted 10-20-2009 3:37 AM Percy has responded Message 74 by Dr Jack, posted 10-20-2009 9:25 AM Percy has responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2837 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009

 Message 65 of 80 (531786) 10-19-2009 10:59 PM

SSSsssooooooo I guess that no one read Gitt's book ?
 Replies to this message: Message 66 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2009 1:53 AM slevesque has not yet responded Message 67 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2009 2:06 AM slevesque has responded Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 10-20-2009 7:18 AM slevesque has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4

 Message 66 of 80 (531798) 10-20-2009 1:53 AM Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque10-19-2009 10:59 PM

I doubt that Gitts; book is worth reading. The basics are on the web for free - and based on those I can't say that the book is worth paying money for.

If you have read it and you think that it makes valid points then you can certainly bring those up. Have you read it ?

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by slevesque, posted 10-19-2009 10:59 PM slevesque has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8848
Joined: 04-04-2003

 Message 67 of 80 (531801) 10-20-2009 2:06 AM Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque10-19-2009 10:59 PM

Gitt's Book
You haven't explained how it has any relevance here. You also haven't answered the questions put forth in the first post. Why not?
 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by slevesque, posted 10-19-2009 10:59 PM slevesque has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 68 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 2:20 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 2837 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009

 Message 68 of 80 (531802) 10-20-2009 2:20 AM Reply to: Message 67 by NosyNed10-20-2009 2:06 AM

Re: Gitt's Book
Of course, this isn't a random question and the eventual outcome will contribute to the discussion. Although I find it very, very odd that no one is even responding to this simple yes or no question (Although Paulk just answered he didn't read it)

Mr. Jack ? Percy ? Dr. Adequate ? etc. Did anybody read the book ?

PS Paulk, I didn't read the book myself, as I said on the first page of discussion

 This message is a reply to: Message 67 by NosyNed, posted 10-20-2009 2:06 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 69 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2009 2:37 AM slevesque has not yet responded Message 71 by Percy, posted 10-20-2009 5:38 AM slevesque has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4

 Message 69 of 80 (531803) 10-20-2009 2:37 AM Reply to: Message 68 by slevesque10-20-2009 2:20 AM

Re: Gitt's Book
I'll be very surprised if anyone has read Gitts book because it is a) obscure and b) appears to be very bad. I don't think that it has anything useful to contribute to the discussion other than giving some indication of the misunderstandings on the creationist side.

So far as I'm concerned the most interesting thing about Gitt is the creationist attempt to make his (weak) credentials seem much better than they really are.

 This message is a reply to: Message 68 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1840 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 70 of 80 (531808) 10-20-2009 3:37 AM Reply to: Message 64 by Percy10-19-2009 8:31 PM

Re: Weighing DNA
 But as Mr. Jack has explained, they would consider that to be a restoration of information that was there at creation. A mutation that could increase information beyond what was present at the beginning isn't possible.

But that is not really relevant. The creationist is arguing against *evolution* and *common descent* in a naturalistic framework by stating that mutations cannot increase information. We trivially demonstrate that they can. Stating that these mutations only restore information that was there to begin with is switching framework - this is no longer an argument against evolution, but a explanation of why we see information-increasing mutations within a creation framework. This is simply a slight of hand, and does nothing to defend against our demolishing of their original argument.

 This message is a reply to: Message 64 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 8:31 PM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 72 by Percy, posted 10-20-2009 5:46 AM cavediver has not yet responded Message 75 by Dr Jack, posted 10-20-2009 9:28 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 71 of 80 (531825) 10-20-2009 5:38 AM Reply to: Message 68 by slevesque10-20-2009 2:20 AM

Re: Gitt's Book
No, I didn't read Gitt's book, for the same reason I don't read books on homeopathy, past lives and spoon bending. If you think there's something of merit in Gitt's book then bring it forward into the discussion.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 68 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 2:20 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9

 Message 72 of 80 (531827) 10-20-2009 5:46 AM Reply to: Message 70 by cavediver10-20-2009 3:37 AM

Re: Weighing DNA
That the universe began in perfection and has been deteriorating since is a very common part of the creationist viewpoint, so I don't think they're switching frameworks when they remind us of this. Maybe we understandably fail to take it into account if they don't mention it explicitly up front, but we do know about it.

Dr Adequate is seeking a way to counter the creationist claim of no new information without requiring an understanding of information theory or even a definition of information. I don't know that this is possible, though it seems well worth exploring. But it is possible that creationists only buy into the bogus creationist claims about information solely because they don't understand information theory or even know what information is, and that therefore you have to educate them before you can convince them.

It again feels like 2LOT discussions to me. I don't think I've ever been involved in a 2LOT discussion where the creationist eventually came to understand that it isn't about messy rooms, and I think information theory presents many of the same conceptual problems.

--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 70 by cavediver, posted 10-20-2009 3:37 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2292 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003

 Message 73 of 80 (531838) 10-20-2009 7:18 AM Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque10-19-2009 10:59 PM

Gitt information
I certainly haven't read it, but I have read several things he has published online about his 'measure' of information. I don't see how expanding his thesis to book length is going to make his numerous unwarranted assumptions magically warranted. If you feel his assumptions are reasonable you should go to the The value of Gitt information thread and tell us why.

TTFN,

WK

 This message is a reply to: Message 65 by slevesque, posted 10-19-2009 10:59 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003

 Message 74 of 80 (531859) 10-20-2009 9:25 AM Reply to: Message 64 by Percy10-19-2009 8:31 PM

Must resist fist of pedantry... failing...
 But statements like x

Actually, it's very much the other way round. The axiomatic construction of numbers is constructed on the basis of ordering.

 This message is a reply to: Message 64 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 8:31 PM Percy has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 76 by Percy, posted 10-20-2009 9:37 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003

 Message 75 of 80 (531860) 10-20-2009 9:28 AM Reply to: Message 70 by cavediver10-20-2009 3:37 AM

Re: Weighing DNA
 But that is not really relevant. The creationist is arguing against *evolution* and *common descent* in a naturalistic framework by stating that mutations cannot increase information. We trivially demonstrate that they can. Stating that these mutations only restore information that was there to begin with is switching framework - this is no longer an argument against evolution, but a explanation of why we see information-increasing mutations within a creation framework. This is simply a slight of hand, and does nothing to defend against our demolishing of their original argument.

I don't think so. What the argument presented shows is that for a starting set E of information encoding genomes (taken from the set of possible genomes G) you can constuct a set A for which a mutation will increase information by transforming them into stated set E. This does not show that you can reach set E from an arbitarily selected genome g in set G.

 This message is a reply to: Message 70 by cavediver, posted 10-20-2009 3:37 AM cavediver has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next