Evolving New Information

Ok cavediver, if you want I will quantify the increase in information.So you decide how we are to store the code. I wrote the code in Java so we need to know how the Java interpreter writes the binary code instructions for the machine. Which machine?. How does the machine assemble the instructions?But in reality you're missing the point of my argument.Percy claims that given a 4⁶ possible or 12 bits of information that only 2 of these possibilities are legitimate until a mutation occurs. Then another possibility is OK.Percy doesn't know what he is talking about. Although Percy should be a Master on this topic he struggles with the realities.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

As I said to cavediver, I need to know which interpreter he wants to use and on which machine he wants to assemble the instructions. Please Percy, detail my ignorance. You say that the DNA code contains a lot of redundancy, and of course, you can demonstrate this. The amount of information that we will get by quantifying my code will seem excessive also, but it's not redundant. Good, you understand. So now you're talking about communication of information, not new information.
The cell itself knows what it needs to do. If the eye colour machine needs to make an eye colour, it takes in its parameters from the DNA. If the parameters are not of the same "object" that it requires the machine will break down, just like any other machine.In other words the language has to be in place. A mixture of symbols from the alphabet is not good enough. Information cannot be created by noise.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

When you say, "random chance" I take it you're referring to probability. Ah, Coyote, you're beginning to understand. Do the dice create the information or do you? What is the message the dice are imparting? Coyote, it's a scientific endevour.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

They are not random they are probabilistic. You can predict how many of each molocules will produced.Chemical reactions are also entropic whereas the cell is antientropic.To create new information is counter entropic. This is what you guys have to try explain with known laws of nature. Chemicals contain no information, they're just chemicals subject to the natural laws. Information exists outside of matter. Why do you make such a silly statement when you don't even believe it yourself. Information requires an encoder a decoder and a language, none of these are present in matter but are all present in the cell.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

But Percy thats what is information is, implementing a thought, or idea... a message into code.According to you ALL information is redundant.Answer these two questions:

• How many bits of information did it take for you to understand that your best friend was distressed?


• How many bits of information did it take to construct your brightest idea?
  

Of course the answer is none. But if you want to relate it, then you need to encode it into a predefined language that the recipient can understand. The shell consists of 832 bits the first bit of code consisted of another 1752 bits and the second bit of code added another 376 bits. It depends how we define redundancy. I obviously have a different interpretation than you do. Redundancy is necessary in critical systems for reliability. Error checking for example. It doesn't need to be there for a particular function but it is necessary for the overall well being of the system as a whole.In the case of my code there is no redundancy at all. Thats just how many more bits of information is required to perform the additional functionality. No its not, its black and white. Is that right? If we want to keep things simple, like I do, I suggest we use models that can be simulated in the lab, like I have, rather than using unsubstantiated, untestable theoretic models that are contrary to observation. And you have an example, besides your theoretical musings. I think the machinery is lacking? do I? And if this happened say, once and then propagated, a germ cell would be useless.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Show me one

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

We're living in two different dimensions greyseal. You claim that an organism develops brand new beneficial functions due to gamma rays smashing apart the information rich genetic structure of DNA.I've provided a useless but structured bit of information in my code. It's up to you to show how your theory holds up in the lab.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Sickle cell anemia is a disease Coyote. It reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, it leads to organ failure and death. How can you claim that this is beneficial.Besides, it adds NO NEW INFORMATION.It's got nothing to do with my world view Coyote, it's observable science.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

All of Shannons experiments were the result of a deliberate, intelligent message. Otherwise he couldn't do his maths.Yes he dealt with the efficiency of the transfer of information without considering the meaning and of course he realised that it requires the positive intelligent use of energy to ensure that the transmission was recieved as expected. A predefined binary information system. Take the meaning away and its just flashing lights. Just like a function doesn't make any sense outside its program, an eye colour machine makes no sense outside a cell. The shell is simply the encapsulation program, in this case a java executable.

public class Swap {

    public static void main(String args) {

    }

}

If you want to know how I calculated the information content then just complile the following files:

public class Swap {
    public static void main(String args) {
	Object a = new Object();
	Object b= new Object();
	swap(a,b);
    }
private static void swap(Object a, Object b) {
  Object temp = new Object();
  temp = b;
  b=a;
  a=temp;
}
}

and;

public class Swap1 {
    public static void main(String args) {
	Object a = new Object();
	Object b= new Object();
	Object c= new Object();
	swap(a,b,c);
    }
private static void swap(Object a, Object b, Object c) {
  Object temp = new Object();
  temp = c;
  c=b;
  b=a;
  a=temp;
}
}

your reference should actually read;

quote:

---

Redundancy in information theory is the number of bits used to transmit a message minus the number of bits of actual information in the message. Informally, it is the amount of wasted "space" used to transmit certain data. Data compression is a way to reduce or eliminate unwanted redundancy, while checksums are a way of adding desired redundancy for purposes of error detection when communicating over a noisy channel of limited capacity.

---

which is exactly my interpretation. When we are talking about a cell that has to pass on its information into a different time, it has no memory, the term redundancy changes is normal meaning. I disagree, the 12 choices are determined by the environment or "situation" the cell finds itself. It's not redundancy but rather the inbuilt ability to adapt. Again I disagree. You are talking about expression. You're calling expression new information; its not. You claim on one hand that certain possible outcomes are redundant but then you use one and claim its new information. Now you need to use my model just as I have asked greyseal to do. Smash it to produce new information. If you are successful then I will reconsider my poisition.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Here's one Information theory's an infant. Mathematics is a specialized way of thinking, it doesn't change because we're talking about bits. Who says bits is the bases of information transfer. We use bits because it's convenient.Transmitting bits from one place to another. Just like your binary "Flashing lights". If I was to put more effort into constructing the hardware, that is, the encoder and decoder, then I could juggle my three objects with just one bit. That is, I could rewrite my code with just a "1". The problem you have, still, is that you don't understand that communication is more than just bits; bits is a convenient mathematical representation.For example; you don't know whether an adenine paired with a guanine is just a bit. Or whether an adenine paired with a guanine is other than a bit when next to a cytosine and a thymine. No, that's how you're defining information, not me. Cavediver, being a physicst, and you Percy, a software engineer, we've all done these things, we know given another hour or so we will be able to reduce the amount symbols on the sheet. What you are telling me is that no intelligence is required. Yes I can argue with that, I already have. Did you forget that you are arguing for evolution. I'm saying that using the communication system I used, which is an entire communication structure, with a predefined syntax, that's how many symbols I need to use to get the message across. I can redefine the communication system to only require one signal. I don't really want to contribute any more to this discussion. I think I have proved my point. You don't get information for nothing, you don't get matter for nothing and space is without natural explanation. Taking these facts, and the fact that we are here discussing these things only shows that there are certain people that prefer to hide their head under the pillow.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Sorry Percy but time is relative. Also I apologise for posting on the wrong thread.I believe the cell is the interpreter/decoder. Where it and the dna code comes from is in dispute; design/nature. If you try to put chicken nucleus into a human egg cell, the cell will try to produce a human, not a chicken. Similarly if you put human dna in a chicken egg, the egg will try produce a chicken, not a human. The cell contains its own information.Also the amount of information is not necessarily linearly related to the meaning of that information. Different communication systems use different coding.In my analogy the environment for my code is the java interpreter; the shell (852 bits) tells the interpreter that it is a program (egg); a java application.


public static void main(String args){}


The shell is a standarized connection/access protocol. If the interpreter can't establish that the egg is compliant then it should abort it. Or similarly
In expert systems, a shell is a piece of software that is an "empty" expert system without the knowledge base for any particular application.Once it is established the program is legitimate, then the program (cell) does its stuff.So my particular cell wants to juggle a couple of objects (X bits) or it wants to juggle three objects (x + y bits).The code then is a data base of methods or instructions for doing different things.Let me try to illustrate this:


You then have to consider this:Both these systems are top down structures. There is no way that natural laws can produce a coding system that complies with the requirements of this system. You can not impose code on the interpreter.I'll reply to your other comments shortly.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

I've got a life.

1. I don't give a fat rats arse what people think.
   
2. I know little about information theory? There's nothing to know except the equation which shows that information is not the normal state.
   

Let me try again.

1. Shell = "public static void main string args(){dna code here}"


2. shuffle two objects = however many bits the interpreter told me there are.


3. Shuffle three objects = however many bits the interpreter told me there were.

The amount of additional information = 3-2, how difficult is that to understand?Now we all agree that information is a surprise effect right? Then try remove or change one of these bits and keep the program working.You should be able to modify the code bit by bit, keep the program readable, and add new information. You can't.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Why ask an ignoramus?But anyway I'll tell you what I think. As I have said before, information is a coded message. One way of measuring that information is by using bits. That doesn't mean to say that the same message always uses the same amount of bits in every communication system; it doesn't.Computers are very simple machines. The cell isn't. The cell doesn't use a binary system at all, but a very sofisticated "fuzzy" quaternary system. A system that is as yet not understood.You say that you have shown me an increase in information within a cell. I'm sorry I can't remember, but after I have posted this I will go back and check. Although I'm sure I would have read it on the front page of Nature if it were true. I won't comment further on this, instead I will re-read your reference. You're taking me out of context greyseal. The trick in measuring information content is to see if you could re-write the code, or remove symbols without affecting the meaning of the message. I am not saying that my code, in any sense, is the most efficient way of communicating the message. I bet I (or someone else here) could rewrite the code using less bits. Edited by LucyTheApe, : typo

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Here, you work it out.
Or take my word for it.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Do we have to go on about this Percy: take a copy of this code and compile it:

public class information{

 public static void main(String args) {

}}

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal