Evolving New Information

Hey, woah, now unless real organisms run java code, your model is just a model.I have given you an example of an analogous real-world occurence to your model.You have ignored it.An increase in 3 alleles to 4 is an INCREASE.A increase in the amount of genetic code in an INCREASE.I and others have repeatedly shown you this occuring in nature as well as in logical models.Retract your argument or address the examples.I notice you've taken a very small step forwards...by doing exactly what I predicted and proclaiming that an increase in the number of alleles isn't an increase "in information" which you have still not defined very well, because everybody else thinks they've met your criteria. I think you're wrong. Percy thinks that's wrong. WK thinks that's wrong.You've failed to explain why you're right - after all, an increase in the number of alleles IS an increase, and until you can successfully define "information" everybody is of the opinion that it fulfills your requirements (such as they are).And you've still not even glanced at the syndrome - it replicates your java script example almost perfectly. The syndrome increases the amount of genetic information drastically, and the result doesn't really do what was intended, but then neither does your javascript code.

lucy, I have not forgotten that I asked you to define information for us - specifically how you calculate it - and that you still have not done so in any meaningful way when dealing with genetics.For example (and to be very short, because I am under no illusions that you'll ever actually answer), I have not forgotten that I showed you a natural occurence whereby information can be increased in a genome, thereby fulfilling your requirements for your modified shell program.I have not forgotten not forgotten that I and others showed you a natural occurence resulting in new varieties, thereby fulfilling your requirements for "something which wasn't there before".Don't think I didn't notice when you said that an increased amount of bits for your modified shell program counted as "new information", but that you also flatly said "No, that's how you're defining information, not me." to the question "You think the amount of information in a program is equal to the number of bits output by its compiler?" - which is exactly what you WERE saying.You still claim that natural processes cannot increase the amount of information in things, but hey, I'm reasonably certain that you contain a lot more information now than when you were conceived, and I'm reasonably sure all of that was naturally acquired, not downloaded matrix-style.Don't bother posting meaningless diatribes like the post I (and others, better than I) have just once again trodden the same well-worn path on, all the messages you posted in and all the requests you've been given are still there, and they're still unanswered.

So your answer to "what is information?" in the context of cells and genetics is:"I don't actually know"thanks!Your answer to "how do you calculate the amount of information in the cell" is:"count the number of bits"Thanks!If I'm wrong, tell me what your answer is, not what it isn't. I wasn't the only one to give you this example - and infact there were far more detailed examples than I gave you.Simply, the examle given was a hypothetical (but valid) known species with only three alleles in the population, to which a coding error is made resulting in four alleles.An actual living example is the peppered moth, other examples include carrots that aren't orange and bananas that are yellow.The example that covers your natural occurence increasing the size of the genome was a massive, massive coding error where entire sections of code were copied - in this particular case it caused far more problems than it solved, but like tiktaalik and archy it shows that such a thing is possible. There are other examples but they are far beyond my capability to properly explain. RAZD and Wounded King have though, I believe. No, it isn't. You are dead wrong.cheers,Daniel.

The section I have highlighted tells everyone that the way you calculated the amounts of information was the count the bits.Ergo, you are defining information in amount of bits - possibly valid, but pokes holes in most of your objections and ignores the possibility of having errors in the code that work producing the same number of bits (i.e. new alleles).

so let me get this straight - LTA is so oblivious to the meaning of information that it's taken 416 messages for her to get the problems with her ideas?that after 416 messages, she still hasn't understood the very first message in this thread?...is there an award for that?

no, you haven't. As Percy stated, if different compilers take the same code and create files of different sizes using different code, and you claim that simply "counting the bits" tells you how much information there is in those files, then you are dead wrong.The size of the files may be related to the amount of information, but it is not dependant on it - this is the key objection Percy has.Similarly, you are probably correct when you say but that doesn't change the fact that your answer to what it is is "I don't actually know", neither do you know how to quantify or measure it.A new allele may not increase the size of an organism's genetic code, but it does increase the size of the pool.