Supernatural information supplier

And how does one quantify more or less information?That is how do I tell when uncertainty has been decreased?

quote:

---

Dr. Thomas Schneider, National Cancer Institute, "Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a reciever (or molecular machine)."

---

And that same Dr. T. D. Scheider demonstrated that evolutionary mechanisms create new information. No need to wonder where the new information comes from. It comes from evolution.

Hey NosyNed,But wouldn't it be better if science said something to the effect, "We know a lot, and our research continues, but we don't currently have a good proposal for how the universe was born, how life arose, and where humankind gained conciousness." Why would this be important? For the scientist at work in a lab, it probably doesn't change a thing. But the implications for the layperson or culture in general would be huge. Science informs culture and the negative effects of the strict dogma of pure naturalism cannot be ignored.

Well, I'd agree with what you have between quote marks if you replaced "good" with "firm" or "final" or "complete" (or something like that).It is also what I get from the reading I do. If you allow your impression to be formed by reading just one source or hearing what one scientistist opinion is then you will get a distored impression. What you say there is no surprise to me it is exactly what I would say the consensus opinion is out there.One persons "good" proposal may be anothers "so-so" proposal. The 3 things you list are all being researched and how "good" the current state of knowledge is will be a bit of a personal opinion. They are also in different states of development and confidence. (and changing at different rates of speed.)The "negative" effects of pure naturalism might be a matter of personal opinion. I don't see that there are any. I do see negative affects of magical thinking and a disconnect from reality.If the implications would be huge then I don't see why they aren't there now. What you have said above is, as I noted, probably the current consensus opinion. I have certainly heard and read individual scientists say about the same thing about each of those areas.

I am sure I don't have to point out the potential pitfalls and fallacies of these computer simulations. Plus, where is the machinery that gives the "info" meaning. If we start with zero info, we must be starting with zero machinery; how does all of that happen simultaneously?

From what I can understand, it appears the formula for uncertainity is the same from Schneider as it is from Shannon. But one thing he says that for me is very telling is that the meaning and implication of the information cannot be quantified.

You said:"The "negative" effects of pure naturalism might be a matter of personal opinion. I don't see that there are any. I do see negative affects of magical thinking and a disconnect from reality."My point would be there are implications apparent in society as we speak. Magical thinking is a long way from believing there has to be more than just the natural. Perhaps though this would be better addressed as a separate thread.

quote:

---

I am sure I don't have to point out the potential pitfalls and fallacies of these computer simulations. Plus, where is the machinery that gives the "info" meaning.

---

Sure, point them out. Go for it. The mechanism is the same in the computer program as it is in life. Variation and selection results in new information. There is no getting away from this conclusion.

quote:

---

If we start with zero info, we must be starting with zero machinery; how does all of that happen simultaneously?

---

But evolution doesn't start with zero machinery, it starts with life. The processes of variation and selection result in new information within reproducing populations. No outside agency is required to inject information into a biological system.

Well for starters of course intelligent design is inherent in the system since the program to run the simulation is designed. Secondly, I am sure Behe or Spetner could design a program to show that IC cannot happen by mutation and adaption or that one species of horse cannot become another by the same process, and you would not accept that as evidence. Third, yes, evolution starts with life, but as complexity grows, the biological machinery necessary to "understand" or give meaning to the information in the genome has to be increasing in volume and complexity. An entire library of new phrases is meaningless unless biological machinery is present to react and respond appropriately. By what mechanism is this happening. Schneider himself makes no claims for meaning.By the way, I really would like to read more about that critter you posted a picture of, if you have time to provide. ThanksDennis

The intelligence is setting up the simulation as you note. This is analagous to the laws of physics, the universe and the first life. Since, I think, we are discussing evolution here that is irrelevant at this point. For now you may take it as an analogy to the case where God is responsible for all of those things.After that we are using evolutionary processes which are capable of producing complexity etc. Then let's see the details of this simulation too. I disagree with you, unless they fudge it they won't be able to do any such thing. Until they do it you don't have anything here. Show your work please. Since the entire mechanism is subject to the evolutionary process why can't it produce both the phrases and new machinary.However, it apppears that you may have something there. We'll have to ask a biolgist/geneticist about this one. It is my understanding that the machinary is much more similar from one life form to another than the genomes being processed by it. It that is true then your view point here just helps support evolution.

quote:

---

Well for starters of course intelligent design is inherent in the system since the program to run the simulation is designed.

---

It is designed to mimic natural mechanisms. If I write a program that mimics gravitational effects, does that mean that gravity is intelligently designed?

quote:

---

Secondly, I am sure Behe or Spetner could design a program to show that IC cannot happen by mutation and adaption or that one species of horse cannot become another by the same process, and you would not accept that as evidence.

---

If it accurately simulated evolution I would accept it. However, those experiments have already been done. For example, genetic algorithms were used to reinvent the radio which was chocked full of IC systems: Page has gone | New Scientist

quote:

---

Third, yes, evolution starts with life, but as complexity grows, the biological machinery necessary to "understand" or give meaning to the information in the genome has to be increasing in volume and complexity. An entire library of new phrases is meaningless unless biological machinery is present to react and respond appropriately.

---

How is this a problem for evolution?

quote:

---

By what mechanism is this happening. Schneider himself makes no claims for meaning.

---

Yes he does. From the abstract: "Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial 'protein' in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium."The "meaning" is the protein's ability to bind to a segment of DNA. This is what is being selected for. Over time the information needed for the protein to bind to the DNA arises through evolution. Also, the protein and the DNA sequence that it binds to co-evolve. The protein evolves to recognize the DNA, and the DNA evolves to be better recognized by the protein. This is the same mechanism that occurs in evolution. Two different "objects" coevolve together, starting as a very ineffecient system (the initial state) and moving towards an effecient system hand in hand.For example, let's look at the evolution of the bird wing. The earliest use of feathers was probably as insulation. There are fossil dinosaurs that have feathers but absolutely nothing resembling wings. One lineage of dinosaurs, probably living in an arboreal environment, started to evolve a wider and longer arm. This allowed them to make short jumps, or scramble up trees faster. It could have also allowed them to maneuver better on the ground, sort of like rudders on a boat. Then, as the arm flattened and continued to elongate, the feathers also changed to allow better air flow over the wings. This is similar to the protein/DNA example. Both apparatus, feather and arm, are reacting to the very same selective pressures. Soon, the feathered dinosaur is able to jump from tree to tree, avoiding the ground alltogether. Next, it is soaring from forest to forest, all because the arm and feather co-evolved.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-17-2004 06:36 PM

Hey Loudmouth,First let me say I really appreciate your willingness to dialogue. I know this stuff takes time and it is a benefit to me, so thanks.In your latest reply, you wrote:"For example, genetic algorithms were used to reinvent the radio which was chocked full of IC systems."The only "amazing" thing I could find here was the computer somehow managed to use a connection to another computer as an antenna of sorts. Point being, the connection was already there. ID had designed the wiring, port etc., to be able to function in that way before the computer could stumble upon this alternative use for it."The "meaning" is the protein's ability to bind to a segment of DNA. This is what is being selected for. Over time the information needed for the protein to bind to the DNA arises through evolution. Also, the protein and the DNA sequence that it binds to co-evolve. The protein evolves to recognize the DNA, and the DNA evolves to be better recognized by the protein. This is the same mechanism that occurs in evolution. Two different "objects" coevolve together, starting as a very ineffecient system (the initial state) and moving towards an effecient system hand in hand."I understand, but the protein is not present in this simulation. None of these computer simulations introduce real world survival pressures (natural disasters, creatures not fully or adequately formed dieing off, effectively diabling the whole system, etc). And how could it be expected, for instance for a hundred genes and a couple of thousand proteins to co-evolve simultaneously, each with different functions which interact in incredible ways to produce even a very simple cell? Richard Dawkins says "the right way to test a hypothesis' believabilty is mathmatically" (I am sure I botched the quote, but not his intent), so could we talk about odds at some point?And also:"For example, let's look at the evolution of the bird wing."Let's do. What about archaeopteryx, the "bird-dinosaur" that dates millions of years after fully formed birds appear, or rahona, the fossil Larry Martin of the University of Kansas says, "They are going to have to demonstrate they didn't put a bird's wings on a dinosaur's body." Maybe you have other better examples, if so, please pass them along at your earliest. But I am reminded that there is big money in this fossil trade business and a lot of incentive to "find" fossils that match up to the evolutionary story.Dennis

ddhortt How would you say the same criteria apply to the ID camp? Can you suggest ways to avoid this?

---

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

You are more and more showing yourself to be a 'cut and paster'. If I am wrong please forgive me. You could easily show me I am wrong by explaining briefly which skull elements of your "fully formed bird" are used by the author to draw the conclusion that this specimen is avian. It is discussed extensively in the paper btw. Also, explain what evidence is presented for feathers (as none are associated with the fossil). Don't bother trying to find it at AiG (or other mirror sites), they just make the same claims with no back up.I am not trying to take this off-topic, I just cannot stand this repeated posturing by parrots. It is an insult to all of us (evo and creo alike) who take the time to look things up.Edited to correct grammar.This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 12-18-2004 03:13 PM

Ok, what are the odds that we are here?