|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22478 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Smooth Operator writes: Yes, I know about that. The problem is, that the algorithm itslef already had all the information to produce the design. And you somehow know this without a copy of the program? Genetic algorithms work in the same way as evolution. They're simply computational models of evolution. The reason you deny the possibility of random mutations is because they create new information, and the random mutations generated by genetic algorithms create new information in the same way. But GA's are not the topic of this thread. You should probably propose a new thread if that's what you want to talk about.
The information is already in the genome. The mechanisms that the cell has helps the cell adapt. It selects the best possible expression of already existing information. What you describe has never been observed to happen. When under antibiotic stress the bacteria that survive experience a wide variety of different mutations. The bacteria that happened to receive resistance-conferring mutations survive and pass these mutations on to the next generation. It's the familiar process of descent with modification followed by selection of the organisms that will contribute to the next generation.
Wrong. I said it three times already. You are confusing the mutation repair and mutation inducing mechanisms. When LexA is turend ON there are mutations. When its turned OFF, there are no mutations. No, I had it right, but I was insufficiently clear. The article "it" referred to the genetic repair mechanism, not the LexA. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22478 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Smooth Operator writes: The NFL theorems say that no algorithm can otperform any other on the average unless it takes advantage of prior information about the target. And what two algorithms are you comparing in the bacteria?
And since random chance doesn't create new information... But creating new information is precisely what random chance does. Here's an example. Consider a specific gene in a population of bacteria that has three alleles we'll call A, B and C. For lurkers not familiar with the term, alleles are variants of a single gene. One familiar example is eye color. The eye color gene has several alleles: brown, blue, green, etc. Human eye color depends upon which one you happen to inherit. Eye color isn't really this simple of course, but this hopefully gets the idea of alleles across. So every bacteria in the population has either the A allele, the B allele or the C allele. We can calculate how much information is required to represent three alleles in this bacterial population. It's very simple:
log23 = 1.585 bits Now a random mutation occurs in this gene during replication and the D allele appears. Through the following generations it gradually spreads throughout the population and becomes relatively common. There are now four alleles for this gene, A, B, C and D. The amount of information necessary to represent four alleles is:
log24 = 2 bits The amount of information required to represent this gene in the bacterial population has gone from 1.585 to 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits, and an example of random chance increasing information. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I made a little post on the subject, it also,links to the video I got that from, check it out here: Message 35
(thanks Admin, works like a charm!) I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
traderdrew writes:
quote: Um, you do realize that every single example of "irreducible complexity" that Behe has ever come up with has been shown to be not only reducible but actually evolved? Every single one. Behe simply refuses to examine the literature when it comes to finding evidence that goes against his claims. In the recent Dover trial, he made the claim that nobody has ever done a study on biochemical evolution. So the prosecution started pulling out papers and stacking them up in front of him on the witness stand until they rose so high that Behe had to stop the proceedings because he could no longer see over the stack of papers in front of him that he had claimed did not exist.
quote: Assuming an all-in-one-go scheme, perhaps. Biochemistry doesn't work that way. Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and I draw one. What is the probability of me having drawn the Ace of Spades?What if we knew that I had drawn a black card? What if we knew that I had drawn a Spade? What if we knew that I had draw an Ace? Too, chemical reactions do not just result in random chemicals. When I take a mole of oxygen gas and two moles of hydrogen gas, mix them together at STP, and spark the mixture, why is it I never get a flask full of hydrogen peroxide with trace amounts of water? Why do I always get a flask full of water with trace amounts of hydronium? Why is that when I want to produce hydrogen peroxide, I need to follow another chemical reaction and not just assume that hydrogen and oxygen will combine any old way I want?
quote: Well, then I wouldn't get on board a Boeing 777 if I were you. It was created by a computer using evolutionary methods, not by humans designing it. By your logic, these planes should be falling out of the sky. Why is it they manage to fly despite having been evolved, not designed? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes:
quote: But the E. coli experiment I have often described here proves that to be false. If what you say is true, then the entire lawn should act as one: Either the entire lawn survives or the entire lawn dies. Because the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. Any genetic "information" in the lawn is present in all of them for the only source of "information" was from that single ancestor. Therefore, either the entire lawn is immune to T4 phage or the entire lawn is susceptible and dies. Instead, what we see is that while much of the lawn dies, some colonies remain alive. Therefore, new information must be in the colonies that survived. Your claim of no information necessarily means that if one can do it, then all of them can do it. But instead, we see that some can and some can't. Therefore, new information must be present. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5174 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
First you need to adequately define CSI... Look at my post #299 in the link below. EvC Forum: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack Now that I gave a link to a of mine in another thread,,, attack, attack, attack it.
If I showed you two caves that were identical and one was human made and one created by the forces of nature would this not negate your CSI argument? These forces may the result of some sort of chaotic order but, the problem with your thinking is that a cave or a waterfall do not transmit or produce information, much less CSI (complex specified information).
Neither does the morphology and physiology of biological life intrinsically 'need' to fit a certain standard. Biological life much like other natural occurring phenomena is shaped by the environmental conditions in which it exists. Forces such as electromagnetic radiation and chemical agents can effect the composition of the genome and ultimately the shapes (morphology) of organisms. You'reeee really the Devil's advocate aren't you?
Hmm, did you just make up that definition or where did you draw it from. This is unlike any definition of the word 'chaos' I have seen. What do you mean by linear measurements? Can we not predict to a degree the amount of erosion that will occur in a river on a yearly basis? Is that a 'chaotic thing'? So what specifically falls into your category of 'chaotic things'? I just looked for the definition in a book of mine "Chaos" by James Gleick. I cannot find a good definition inside so far and I don't remember seeing one. I found the book hard to follow because I think I would learn some of the information better if I saw real life illustrations. I do see chaos everytime I step outside or even when cigarette smoke mixes with the air. How would you measure the precise dimensions of smoke (assuming you could flash freeze it) with Euclidean geometry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5174 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Um, you do realize that every single example of "irreducible complexity" that Behe has ever come up with has been shown to be not only reducible but actually evolved? Every single one. Ummmm, I have heard it but I haven't seen any good ones. I have seen the pilus model for evolving a flagellum but it conceals at least one "major" problem plus other problems described by Michael Dembski.
So the prosecution started pulling out papers and stacking them up in front of him on the witness stand until they rose so high that Behe had to stop the proceedings because he could no longer see over the stack of papers in front of him that he had claimed did not exist. So you expect me to go through the transcripts of the Dover trial in order to refute or agree with you? Maybe I will just take your word for it.
Too, chemical reactions do not just result in random chemicals. When I take a mole of oxygen gas and two moles of hydrogen gas, mix them together at STP, and spark the mixture, why is it I never get a flask full of hydrogen peroxide with trace amounts of water? So what you are saying from your chemistry lesson is that biochemistry works with what it is there. But you see with protein bonding, oil and hydrogen bonds have to arranged in sequence with their counterparts in the other proteins as well as having the correct shapes.
traderdrew: Sure there are Darwinian models but do those models conceal any problems along the way? Rrhain: Well, then I wouldn't get on board a Boeing 777 if I were you. It was created by a computer using evolutionary methods, not by humans designing it. By your logic, these planes should be falling out of the sky. Of course there have been test planes that have fallen out of the sky or even blew up....and those evolutionary methods??? Dammit... Now I have to go and really study up on evolutionary computer programs and not rely on what Smooth Operator posted. I have to go because I have some serious studying to do on the Dover trial too. See you all around. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix dBCodes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
And since random chance doesn't create new information, You know Dembski? The guy who created this unsubstantiated claim? He disagrees with you.
quote:Wiki He claims that CSI can't be created, but CI and SI can. He proposes no mechanism that stops CI from becoming specified, and thus CSI or the other way, SI becoming complex and thus CSI. He claims that natural laws can't create information (but chance can) they can only shuffle around or lose information, but again, he asserts this without proposing a reason that a natural law can't create information, since the sun burns via natural laws and creates information all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Yes that's true. It will happen, but most of the time it won't. And on the average it won't either. That's what the NFL says too. quote:Maybe because they could be there? But again, that's not the point. What you are doinf is using prior information. I said, that you should use the exact same process, not modified. That's what NFL is about. So let's say you have a house with 9 rooms, and all rooms are the same size. You don't know where the keys are. You maek al algorithm that searches the rooms in this order: 7, 6, 4, 2, 1, 8, 5, 9, 3. And after you find the keys, you go to another 10 room house. No the question is, will this exact same path give you better results than random chance averaged ovar all houses? The answer is no it won't. Neither will any other path. They ahve on average the same chance. Because in soem houses the keys will be in the room 4, and in soem houses they will be in the room 3. So in soem houses you will get there sooner, and in soem houses you will get to the keys later. And on teh average it will be the same as a random search.
quote:I said you can't use that info. quote:But it won't work more times. It will be average. quote:Exactly, but for to design them, you have to have prior information. quote:It can't arise from a random process, because you are doing that process and checking the rooms. You are creating information. quote:But again, that is prior assumption about other houses. quote:True but you can't apply that knowledge on all transportation methods like flight. You can on cars because they are similar. But that again means that you made prior assumption on which kind of transport will you take. quote:But that is than prior knowledge for the third search. quote:Yes, but for that it takes time and trials. And on every trial you build new information. So what the NFL says is that you can't make an algorithm and apply it without any trials to all sequence spaces with better than average results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But you are the one searching. You made the search. You put in the information of where you are going to search.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because ALL algorithms work like that. Even the simple calculators. Can they give you a number that was not programmed into them? No, obviously not. quote:But genetic algortihms in a simulation were designed to find the specified target. Evolution in real life has no knowledge about what it is looking for? And what kind of information are you talking about? Are you saying that random mutations are able to produce Shannon information? Yes that is true. But not CSI. quote:Actually we are talking about the same thing, only in different terminology. quote:Than why doesn my article say that LexA has to be turned on for resistance to be acquired?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:A random search and an evolutionary algorithm. quote:You are wrong because youa re using the wrong definition of information. All of the necessary information was already there. Natural selection just selected it and copied it on the expense of others. But the information for the specific genes was already there, evolution didn't create them. It just spread them. And again, that is what Shannon would call information. The sheere number, does not represent biological information. You have to represent biological functions. If you just multiply the number of genes, you still have the same biological functions, only more genes, which don't give you no new functions.
quote:You can't use Shannon's information and apply it to biological information because it only concerns itslef with statistical aspect of information. It still has to take into account syntax and semantics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No, becasue that information was copied. A copied information is not new semantic information. quote:Resistance is acquired by loss of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5134 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No he doesn't. When I say information I mean CSI, unless stated otherwise. Because we are here talking about biological information, and Shannon's information can not be applied to biological functions. quote:Yes he does and it's called the NFL theorem. quote:What the hell are you talking about? Sun is not creating any new information! That is a meaningless statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3258 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Yes that's true. It will happen, but most of the time it won't. And on the average it won't either. That's what the NFL says too. Almsot everything of a complex nature is improbable from the view of the end result. The fact of the matter is, any end result would have been equally improbable, so relying purely on probability is a losing game.
I said you can't use that info. Ok, but then you're not modelling anything in reality, so I'm not sure what your model is trying to prove. Everything retains elements from previous iterations, and so will generate information based on those previous iterations that can be used in subsequent ones.
But it won't work more times. It will be average. I may have missed this, but can you please lay out the math that let's you determine this? I don't mean an explanation, I want the actual mathematical formula you used to conclude this.
Exactly, but for to design them, you have to have prior information. Yeah, ok, so the fact that I have prior information and can come up with better solutions than nature shows that nature didn't have that prior informatrion, right? So, either the designer of nature lacked the information, didn't use the information, or nature happened on it's own. So, nature is either natural or the designer is inept.
It can't arise from a random process, because you are doing that process and checking the rooms. You are creating information. Why do you say this. As I've said before, this is an assertion. And even Dembski disagrees with you. He agrees that chance can create Specified information, or complex information. He only, for some inexplicable reason, stops at it creating CSI.
But again, that is prior assumption about other houses. Not really. It's merely using everything I have at my disposal, whihc includes and is limited to, the information I learned in the first house. The fact that the next house is similar, just means the information I learned in one is at least partially applicable to the next one.
True but you can't apply that knowledge on all transportation methods like flight. You can on cars because they are similar. But that again means that you made prior assumption on which kind of transport will you take. I can apply some information from cars to flight. I was just in a plane on Saturday. The wheel in front of me turned the same way to make the plane turn the same way. The pedals in front of my feet were similar to the pedals in a car. The things they controlled were different, but I already knew how to use the pedals, if not what they were controlling, so yes, you can apply some information. The amount of information you can apply is directly proportional to the similarity of the situation. The more similar, the more information you can use.
But that is than prior knowledge for the third search. Yes, but that prior knowledge (or information) was generated through the initial random process and refined through the next, less random, process. It's how we build information in real life.
Yes, but for that it takes time and trials. And on every trial you build new information. So what the NFL says is that you can't make an algorithm and apply it without any trials to all sequence spaces with better than average results. But in eveolution, we have many, many trials. Each time a new organism is created (born, divided, etc) we have a trial because the next generation is never the same as the previous one. There is always something different.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024