Evolution and Probability

... but for the creationist the probability of an infintely
powerful god existing are about 12.9

Spetner appears to look at gene survival as a random
process ... that neglects natural selection, which is a
prime component of ToE.He's looking at the genetics only and not the whole 'system'.We don't even know how much genetic difference is required
for speciation -- do we?Humans and chimps have been said to have anywhere between
5% and 1% difference in DNA ... and that's not even the
whole story when you consider that gene expression is just
as import as gene existence.You cannot calculate a probability of speciation without knowing
how much difference is required before speciation can be
said to have occurred.Analogy alert:What is the probability of getting a six?Q: Is there enough information in the question to produce
a meaningful result?A: No.

I read an article a while ago that said it had been
found that each of us has as many as four genetic
differences from our parents.Everyone.Not everyone has lethal or debilitating genetic diseases
(although some do).Any non-lethal mutation that has an expression that is
accessible to the environment can be beneficial in the
right environment.The comment that mutations are detrimental has no real
evidence -- after all unless we sequence everyone and compare
them to their parents how can we be sure how many
mutations we all carry (as I say some recentish research
suggests around four).All of these features are contrary to the assumptions upon
which the calculations have been made -- isn't that enough
to scratch them and try again with a better mutation model?...and the Maxwell Demon of natural selection needs to be
incorporated somehow too.

Just as a side note I

Just as a side note IThat'll teach me for not previewing!!!! Had a open square
bracket in there .....[This message has been edited by Peter, 10-28-2003]

Just as a side note I'd like to point out that there are
a number of conflicting camps within the discipline of
information theory.An emerging definition for information is, basically and very
truncated'Data plus the meaning ascribed to it by an intelligence'.Shannon Information (sans semantic meaning) is then considered
'data' rather than 'information'.I agree with you , BTW, you cannot apply the principles of data
transmission to information.

quote:

---

Re: A Basic Error

​

Peter writes:
Just as a side note I'd like to point out that there are
a number of conflicting camps within the discipline of
information theory.

​

I think you'll find there's only two camps: information theorists and Creationists.

​

An emerging definition for information is, basically and very
truncated
'Data plus the meaning ascribed to it by an intelligence'.

​

This is the Creationist definition. It was invented to construct a plausible sounding objection to the possibility of evolution creating complexity, it has no basis in reality, and it has no actual useful application

---

Tell that to Prof. Peter Checkland and the Soft Systems Thinking
community at large including departments in the University fo
Lancaster, De Montfort University in Milton Keynes, University of
Sheffield .... this may sound like a 'from authority' clause
that wasn't my intent -- just pointing out that there is a
significant focuss on information as an interpretive act in
the real-world of Information Research.Creationists, as ever, seem to latch on to ideas and form
some half-baked reason to use it against evolution.The type of information I am referring to CANNOT exist in
biological systems, since there is no intelligent interpreter
available -- DNA is data at best ... but really just chemistry
in action.

Basically there are a group of people working on
Information Systems applications, and have underlying
concepts of Information Theory.Some regard the problem as a simple engineering activity
with information and data being interchangeable, while
others say that such a view cannot produce anything but
faulty, flawed systems and can ultimately lead to systems
failure.It is, perhaps, more of an Information Systems area, but
the underlying principles/definitions of what information
is/are(??) and can be usefully viewed as are an issue within
the discipline.My opinion has never particularly wavered from DNA as a code
beign an over-used analogy that has come to be accepted as
a fact -- DNA is a complex chemical, that forms part of
an incredibly complex reactive environment .... but's
it not information in an Information Theory sense (even
when viewed just as data transmission).