|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because it's a loss of specificity. quote:Wrong! It's the antibiotics that have been designed to bind to the gyrase. When the gyrase looses it's afinity, it looses information. quote:Than show me a case where there is an increase in information. quote:Again wrong. The organism can fluctuate. But only in the already existing informational range. The genome itslef is constantly deteriorating. quote:Of course, since I never said that it was. Where you came up with it I have no idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No novelty. Computers could develop something that scientists have by themselves overlooked. But even that novelty was together with the whole sequence space programmed into the computer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Explain, how exactly is it purely negative. quote:Actually no. He ruled out evolution because of the NFL theorem. quote:All the specifications are there. The number of genes, and the numbers of proteins used to make a flagellum. quote:Well like I said before. He ruled out the evolution because of the NFL theorem. So the only thing you are left with is blind chance. quote:But you always use the knowledge of the event together with your background knowledge. And thais background knowledge in this case is that the 40 out of 41 cases teh Democrats were first on the ballot. And that this coresponds to an independently givven pattern of Democrats having more chance at winning elections, and that Caputo himself was a democrat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Everyone is. For an algorithm to perform better than blind search you have to optimize it. The NFL says so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But your program is using the already programmed in instructions from the computer. Like , quote:Ah, but here comes the problem. Evolution has no knowledge of the search target. Therefore it's as useful as blind chance. quote:No, people do make new information by calculations. The computers just process them faster than we do. quote:No, it hasen't it has only been processed by the algorithm you produced. All the relevant information to produce it was already in there. The whole search space was in there from the start. You just optimized an algorithm to find it faster than blind chance. quote:Look, no operation by a computer can create new information. It's a well known fact. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab - EvoInfo.org
quote:But in the real world, evolution has no information about the search problem. quote:It's in the book. But I did manage to find an online version. It'se from pages 289 - 302.
Dembski - No Free Lunch quote:The point remains that you didn't mention his other education degrees. Like these: quote: quote:I'm just saying there is ID based reasearch. You made it look like there isn't. quote:The articels ays that they interfer witht he working of LexA and the evolution of resistance stops. Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link. Edited by Admin, : Change angle brackets to literals, fix errors in quoting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It doesn't. They give you the same results on average. quote:Uh, no. I cited the articelw here it says that it can't. Did you miss it? If his model does not account for semantics than it can't be used to measure biological function. quote:Oh, but it's very true. quote:See, it's only about the statistical aproach. Information theory - Wikipedia And I never said that statistical aproach is excluded from biological realm. I'm saying that it's not enough to describe an measure biological information. You need more than that.
quote:Oh, you mean that D appears. Well, in that case, such a thing has never been observed. Furthermore having more genes does not equal more information. Consider this example. "MY HOUSE IS BIG" This statement is made of 4 words. This represents information. Now if I were to double this, I would have: "MY HOUSE IS BIG""MY HOUSE IS BIG" By your definition I would have more information. But I do not. I would only have more statistical part of information. But no new meaning. And sice information consists of: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics, you need to increase all 5 to have new information. Not just the statistical part. To get more information you would have to type something like this: "MY HOUSE IS BIG""IT HAS A RED ROOF" Now you know something else. And thus you have more information. Gene duplication does not give you that. It has never been observed to create new biological functions. YOu might have more genes, but they do not perform new functions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Wrong! It's the antibiotics that have been designed to bind to the gyrase. Um, that was rather my point. The antibiotics are designed to bind to gyrase. Are you claiming that after the antibiotics were designed the information content of gyrase just magically went up without any change in its genetic sequence because it suddenly had a high affinity binding molecule created for it? If you are talking about a loss of specificity in the gyrase are you claiming that the binding affinity is a result of complex specified information in the gyrase? If so then how are you not claiming that the gyrase had evolved or been designed to bind the antibiotic, rather than the other way round. And unless this is the case how can it possibly be a loss of information for the gyrase when it mutates in such a way as to lose this affinity?
When the gyrase looses it's afinity, it looses information. Then how can it be considered a loss of information for the gyrase? The only 'functional' element lost to the gyrase is that of binding a molecule which makes it damaging or possibly lethal to the organism, and that was a function that didn't exist until the antibiotic was developed. Are you saying that gyrase was intelligently designed to be susceptible to the antibiotics in the future? That seems a lot of effort for the intelligent designer to go to for only a few decades of antibiotic protection. Simply saying 'it's a loss of specificity' is not a sufficient answer.
But only in the already existing informational range. How is this substantially different? Are you saying 'this is the range of informational variation we know about, anything beyond this is a loss of information'? If not how can we measure this existing range? This can hardly be anything other than pure speculation since we don't know what all the existing genetic variations have been for a whole species ever. So how can you possibly know what the existing 'informational range' is for anything?
The genome itslef is constantly deteriorating. Than why haven't bacteria simply vanished over the billions of generations of their existence? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
traderdrew responds to me:
quote: Huh? I've given you specific examples. Every single example Behe has ever put forward as an example of "irreducible complexity" has been shown to be not only reducible but we have found evolutionary pathways for them. From the blood clot cascade the flagellum. Every single one has been shown to be evolved. In his books, he boasts that nobody has ever studied these things when all it takes is a tiny amount of searching in PubMed to find that he's talking out of his ass. For the blood clot cascade alone, there were literally hundreds of papers on the biochemical evolution of it that he claimed didn't exist when he wrote Darwin's Black Box. Why don't you know this. If you're going to bring Behe up, why don't you know what he's said? I am not here to do your homework for you. If you're going to put forward Behe as someone to pay attention to, then you're going to have to know what it is that he's claiming. I can't make you read his argument. You have to do that for yourself.
quote: Did you bother to look it up? Are you incapable of doing your own homework? This is hardly some rare, isolated case that only legal buffs would have ever heard of. It made the national news. And I don't want you taking my word for it. I want you to learn about it on your own.
quote: Then go do your homework. We'll still be here when you come back. 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 responds to me:
quote: But if your claim of "no new information" is true, then they all have the same genetic profile. Therefore, they should either all die or all live. With no new "information" to confer resistance, then the entire lawn necessarily behaves as one as they are all descended from a single ancestor. So since the the lawn is not behaving as a single unit, since only some live and some die, the premise that no new "information" has been introduced is proven false.
quote: Incorrect. Because you can repeat the process by taking the new, resistant bacteria, isolating a single bacterium, and having it reproduce to form a lawn and re-infecting the lawn with T4 phage. By your logic, with no new "information" to confer infectivity, the entire lawn should survive. Instead, we find plaques starting to form. Now, this can't possibly be a case of the bacterium reverting to wild-type. If there were a bacterium that had reverted, it would be infected by T4 and die, but it is surrounded by the immune bacteria who would reproduce and fill in the gap. So it clearly isn't the bacteria that evolved but rather the phage. But by your logic, since all this is "loss of information," how on earth is anything still alive?
quote: Kevin Anderson? Creation Research Society Quarterly? Those are your references? At any rate, your reference doesn't actually support the claim. The antibiotics disrupt cellular activity via a certain pathway. The bacteria acquire mutations that allow them to reproduce without using that pathway. That isn't "loss of information." And for further evidence, the process by which bacteria become resistant to ciproflaxacin (one of the antibiotics in your source) is by actually creating new genes with an altered amino acid sequence such that the ciproflaxacin doesn't bond well to the topoisomerase anymore. Where is this "loss of information" you are crowing about?
quote: But you can keep running the experiment over and over, having the two continually change their genes to maintain the standoff. If this were the result of "loss of information" as you keep claiming, then eventually there wouldn't be anything left in either genome. So since the bacteria and phage are still around and have just as big a genome as they always have, where did the "loss of information" go?
quote:quote: Use any one you want. For those three comparisons, which one has more "information"? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes: Consider this example. "MY HOUSE IS BIG" This statement is made of 4 words. This represents information. Now if I were to double this, I would have: "MY HOUSE IS BIG""MY HOUSE IS BIG" {...} To get more information you would have to type something like this: "MY HOUSE IS BIG""IT HAS A RED ROOF" Or this: "MY HOUSE IS BIG""MY MOUSE IS BIG" A doubling followed by a small mutation can easily result in new information. This is how it can and does happen in genomes. It has been observed and documented. Repeatedly negating this fact doesn't make it go away. It makes one look ignorant. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This loss of information we keep hearing about from IDers bears a striking resemblance to the religious belief in "devolution" since "The Fall."
It has no basis in science. And they expect us to believe them when they claim that ID is not religion lite. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22495 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Smooth Operator writes: But your program is using the already programmed in instructions from the computer. I think you meant to say that the instructions come from people, right? But a person performing multiplication using pencil and paper is just following the instructions he learned in fifth grade. There's no difference between a person following an algorithm and a computer following an algorithm when it comes to creating new information. The implication of your position is that no new information has been created from performing multiplication since someone first figured out how to do it. That inventor of multiplication created new information, and everyone since has just been following instructions. And even the inventor of multiplication was just taking advantage of information he was taught by others before him and merely economized by showing how people could perform multiplication of many digits just by memorizing the times table for single digits, so he didn't create new information, either. Obviously that's an unworkable definition of new information. Shannon defined the problem of communication as one of replicating at one point a message from a set of messages originating from another point. When a message from the message set is sent from point A to point B then information has been communicated. So it works like this. A person sending you messages from his message set (his personal store of knowledge that he keeps in his brain) is adding to your own personal message set every time he tells you something you didn't already know. For you, everything you didn't already know is new information. You add it to your personal message set, and now this becomes a message that you can send to someone else. So let's say you're chatting online with someone who tells you that 17x26 is 442. This is new information for you. You could have easily have figured it out yourself, but you didn't, so your online friend has now added information to your message set. Your message set has increased in size. For the length of time that you remember that 17x26 is 442, this is a message that you can pass on to others, thereby increasing their personal message sets. But it makes no difference where the message that 17x26 is 442 came from. If you had instead used your calculator you would have still added new information to your message set. In other words, it doesn't matter if the new information came from a person or an object. For all you care the clouds could have formed into the equation "17x26=442" in the sky and it would still represent new information for you. In other words, the creation of new information doesn't mean that the same information hasn't been created before. It would make no sense to say that of two independent inventors who create the same invention with no knowledge of the other's work, that the inventor who completed the invention first created new information and the other did not. So new information is everything you learn that you didn't already know. The source of the information is irrelevant. All that remains is to add to this the fact that information is sent and received by everything everwhere in existence. In other words, the sharing and creation of information is not a special trait of human beings. It is possessed by all matter everywhere.
Ah, but here comes the problem. Evolution has no knowledge of the search target. Therefore it's as useful as blind chance. This is half correct. Mutation has no knowledge of any "search target," but selection is the very opposite of random. The best adapted survive and contribute their genes to the next generation, including any mutations they might have. That's why white rabbits evolve in the arctic and not the rain forest. If evolution were truly random then white rabbits could evolve anywhere. So we're back to the same question. You cited the NFL theorem which holds that one algorithm cannot perform better than another algorithm unless it has more information. So you're talking about two different algorithms, one that you call "evolution," and the other that you call "random". How does the "evolution" algorithm differ from the "random" algorithm?
No, it hasen't it has only been processed by the algorithm you produced. All the relevant information to produce it was already in there. The whole search space was in there from the start. You just optimized an algorithm to find it faster than blind chance. So the whole search space is there from the start, and if designers search the search space and find a solution, then that is new information. And if a computer searches the search space and finds a solution, then that's not new information. Your position keeps knocking into contradictions.
quote:Look, no operation by a computer can create new information. It's a well known fact. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab - EvoInfo.org But you can't just cite Mr. Robertson. You have to understand why Mr. Robertson said this and explain here why I'm wrong. Otherwise I can go off and search the web for quotes of people saying that computers *can* create new information. The purpose of discussion isn't to make arguments from authority, otherwise we'll end up arguing who cited the best authority. The goal is to actually understand what you're debating to the point where you can make the arguments yourself. But since you offered a bare reference with no argument I will do the same. Read this rebuttal from What is thought? by Eric B. Baum, especially the part beginning in the middle of page 429 and that concludes like this:
Eric B. Baum writes: And how did the information come into the DNA program? Through evolution, which potentially reflects copious information, perhaps 1035 bits of feedback. Moving on:
quote:It's in the book. But I did manage to find an online version. It'se from pages 289 - 302.
Dembski - No Free Lunch You refer me to a Google Books page in Croatian? That doesn't work? If you have an argument to make about CSI based upon Dembski's book No Free Lunch, could you please enter the argument into the discussion in your own words?
The point remains that you didn't mention his other education degrees. Like these: I didn't mention any of Dembski's degrees. The point is that scientists aren't producing advances based upon CSI, not even Dembski who is working as a professor at a Bible college where he teaches courses in the philosophy of religion. If you think the Biologic Institute is producing evidence of CSI, then I think it would be highly relevant to this discussion if you would tell us about it.
The article says that they interfer with the working of LexA and the evolution of resistance stops. You're just stating your original position again. I have no idea why the authors of the article chose to overstate the point. Obviously evolution does not stop. There is no process that can make the copying of genetic material perfect. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22495 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Smooth Operator writes:
quote:It doesn't. They give you the same results on average. That they give the same results is what you claim the NFL theorem tells us about the two different algorithms, "random" on the one hand and "evolution" on the other. How do these two algorithms differ in their definition? I know how evolution works. How does this "random" algorithm that your contrasting evolution with work?
Uh, no. I cited the articelw here it says that it can't. Did you miss it? If his model does not account for semantics than it can't be used to measure biological function. I think you're confusing what a gene does with meaning. Meaning and semantics are a human interpretation. Semantics cannot be quantified, is not part of information theory, and isn't even relevant. This goes back to Shannon's original paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication:
Shannon writes: 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. This is as true today as it was then.
quote:Oh, but it's very true. Yes, I know you believe this, but can you support your position with evidence and arguments? You're most common responses to everyone seem to be variants of either, "No, I'm right," or "No, you're wrong." Population genetics is an extremely statistical science, and this flatly contradicts your position. Almost all medical studies are statistical in nature, and this also flatly contradicts your position. Need I go on providing examples? But my original reason for responding was to point out you were wrong to say that Shannon information "deals only with statistical aspect of information" in your Message 182. Are you talking about the quantification of information? Not statistical. Are you talking about the introduction of noise into communication? Very statistical. In other words, Shannon information has both statistical and non-statistical aspects. Like many things. I thought the Widipedia article made this pretty clear. So statistical approaches are appropriate in the biological realm. Indeed, where wouldn't statistical approaches be appropriate? Statistics is a tool (among many) that one can probably apply to virtually any problem.
Oh, you mean that D appears. Well, in that case, such a thing has never been observed. Mutations not currently present in a population have never been observed? Could you please return to reality?
Furthermore having more genes does not equal more information. My example was the addition of a single allele to a pre-existing gene, but gene duplication adds even more information. Let's go back to Shannon again, saying what I've already said, but I want to show you that I've been accurately describing information theory:
Shannon writes: The fundamental problem of communication is that of producing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point...The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. So if we increase the number of alleles in a gene from 3 to 4, the amount of information in the message set rises from 1.585 bits to 2 bit, an increase of .415 bits. You evidently thought I was talking about gene duplication when I was actually talking about a single mutation causing the addition of an allele, but let's talk about gene duplication using your example. First you have this gene:
My house is big. Then there's gene duplication and you have this:
My house is big. My house is big. We can argue about whether this represents more information or not, but we don't need to. Now the duplicated gene experiences a mutation and we get this:
My house is big. My mouse is big. And then another mutation:
My house is big. My mouse is bit. And another:
My house is big. My mouse is lit. And so on, every change creating new information. And assuming there was reproduction involved, this new gene now has the alleles "My house is big," "My mouse is big," "My mouse is bit" and "My mouse is lit." That's quite a bit of new information in the population. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Improve formatting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No, there certainly was a change in the genetic sequence, but it degraded the information. quote:Becasue the gyrase was designed to do it's job. It was doing it just fine. And if it can not perform it anymore as good, it must have lost information in the process. quote:The function and the shape was always there. It lost it die to mutations. quote:But that's what it is. What am I supposed to say. The gyrase was designed the way it was. Just becasue we find some weakness doesn't mean it wasn't designed. quote:You are confusing expression with degradation of informaton. Since we know that a physical process can not produce new information, than it is obvious that all changes are either due to gene expression, or degradation of information. quote:Maybe becasue they are not billions of years old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5141 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No, that's simply not the case. There are billions of ways a genome can mutate. So there are billions of ways some individual can have a specific genetic profile. quote:Didn't I already respond to this? quote:Yes, it is a loss of information, since the pathway has become non functional. quote:Yes that's true. The genome is deteriorating. Read Sanford's Genetic Entropy. quote:1.) In Shannons case AB, in Gitt's case AB 2.) Both the same in any case. 3.) In Shannon's case AA, in Gitt's case both the same.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024