C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #121
So what's holding the 1000 amino acid chains together while waiting on
1001rst, 1002nd, 1003rd?
I don't think this is a straw man at all.
Peace
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
So what's holding the 1000 amino acid chains together while waiting on
1001rst, 1002nd, 1003rd?
I don't think this is a straw man at all.
Peace
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #122
Here's another analysis.
Peace
K/C does not measure uncertainty before receipt, that's what Shannon does. You seem to be very confused about this. It measures complexity by attempting to express the same with less characters instead, thus eliminating redundancy in a string of characters, which would inflate it without actually adding to the information content.
Once all such redundancy has been removed, the remaining length of the string of characters is a representation of its actual information content.
I have shown how Shannon IT does not pose a problem for the ToE. Evolution even requires an increase of Shannon entropy.
You repeat long since refuted points without addressing the refutations. I note that you didn't even attempt to explain how evolution supposedly violates cause and effect (which has been pretty much disproved by quantum physics anyway, so the point it moot).
In case of Shannon information that is correct, but that does not evaluate the mutation's effect on the organism. The message "Let's meet at the bar at nine" would be considered to have lost information according to Shannon if "Let's meet at the bar at nine, E=MC²" was received instead of the original message.
The existence of deleterious mutations is undisputed. However, how come there are telomeres inside a human chromosome if no major chromosome change occured in the past? Did the designer put them there for no particular reason? How come that that chromosome looks exactly like two chimp chromosomes fused together?
Furthermore, chromosome doublings are not always deleterious. Especially in plants they are commonplace.
And how can one get from something which had lost information back to the original content without an intermediate rise? You keep ignoring this and handwave it away by stating that the message doesn't get more original than the original. D'uh.
That makes as much sense as throwing a thousand dice and afterwards wondering that they came up with that particular combination. They argue against a straw man of abiogenesis by the way, not evolution - a straw man which basically resembles spontaneous generation, the emergence of fully formed stuff without more simple precursors.
The emergence of self replicators has been observed directly by the way.
Wright, M.C., & Joyce, G.F.(1997).Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic
function. Science, 276, 614–617.
Rebek Jr, J.(1994).Synthetic self-replicating molecules.Scientific American,
271, 34–40
von Kiedrowski, G.(1986). A self-replicating hexadeoxynucleotide. Angew.
Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 25, 932–935.
The current irreducibility easily explained as the result of billions of years of specialization and streamlining. Just like arches can be built piece by piece - until certain structures are removed which support them. The whole concept of irreducible complexity is dead by the way. According to Michael Behe's own calculations (which he talked about in the Dover trial) billions of IC systems evolve on earth every second.
That's all nice, but the theory of evolution makes no statement about the origin of the first cell, and even as an argument against abiogenesis this fails as current hypotheses of abiogenesis do not claim that it happened that way, a fully formed cell popping out of nowhere.
The following list of credentials of the author is a huge appeal to authority - and other than looking nice it proves absolutely nothing.
Half of the entries on the publications are from magazines which are not subject to proper peer review, and the rest of his credentials isn't in the relevant field. Avionics? Physiology? Cardiology? All nice to know, but quite irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Where is the math, genetics and chemistry on the list?
Anf finally confusing evolution with abiogenesis removes any credibility...
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #124
It is in general not possible to actually calculate the Kolmogorov complexity
of a given message. This is because it measures randomness before
receipt. So how can that be useful? It says nothing as to what information is
received. It's more focused on efficiency in transmission, than an actual
measure of info. It's necessary to separate the concepts of randomness,
complexity, uncertainty, entropy and information.
As to Shannon, remember the formula:
R = H(x) - Hy(x)
Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a
receiver.
Shannon understood this distinction and called the uncertainty which is
subtracted the 'equivocation'. Applied to biology, transmission errors,
frameshift errors...mutations either have a neutral or negative (more)
effect on the conditional entropy Hy(x). This in turn increases the amount of
uncertainty at receipt...or a decrease in info. It's an intuitive concept.
Peace
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #125
Just for reference, where do you say the starting point is for evolution?
i.e.- Amino acids, single cell organisms, etc...
We can take the odds of increasing from that point to a
human brain..or a human as a whole, by mutations and natural selection.
This does'nt remove the validity of the arguement. We can take it up a step
or back a step...it's all relative. The odds are astronomical...impossible...>
10 (50) by far.
Peace
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #126
You say that the a priori chance does not apply in this situation:
But you have not explained why. You've made reference to billions of years
of specialization and streamlining as being the reason why the a priori
chance example is a straw man. But specialization and streamlining of what?
If it's not living, what would there to act upon And what is the mechinism? It
would help if you clarify where you believe evolution started. If you believe
it's something less than the simplist living organism, what would be the
impetus for this specialization and streamlining.
In this situation, I certainly believe the a priori chance example applys.
If you take evolution to begin with a single cell organism, then the following
excerpt provides a nice example:
By the way, I've noted you and Kingambit make references to my bringing
irreducible complexity into this answer. But this is not the case. This
answer is strictly based on probability.
However, I do find Irreducible Complexity to be valid...whole other forum...
Peace
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #127
So your saying an increase in Hy(x) is a requirement of ToE. That means
ToE requires a decrease in info:
R=H(x) - Hy(x)
I've heard this from ToE proponents in the past, and it makes absolutely no
sense to me:
What's being said in this type arguement, is that we realize that if ToE is
truly based on natural laws, then we have to admit that the Second Law
apply's to ToE. So therefore, ToE requires a decrease in info.
But this is to say a one cell organism has more info than a human brain.
Peace
Peace
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #128
Law of Cause and Effect: states that every phenomenon is an effect
of a cause, and that no effect can be measurably greater than its cause.
Therefore, using causal reasoning, the first cause of intelligence must be
of supreme intelligence.
Some other things we can conclude from this law is:
-The first cause of time must be greater than time, in fact eternal.
-Space stretches beyond the limits of detection, so the first cause of all
this space must be greater than this, namely infinite.
-The first cause of all the energy in the universe cannot be less than the
sum total of that energy, according to the Law of Cause and Effect. The first
cause is omnipotent.
-By similar logic, we can consider all the information; not just the intrinsic
properties of matter, but the genetic information in all the varied forms of
animal and vegetable life, and conclude that the first cause must be
omniscient - all-knowing.
Saying a less complicated entity can cause a more complex
entity is in violation of the law. Yet, this is exactly what ToE
claims.
Peace
K/C doesn't deal with "receiving" at all. While random strings have a very high content of K/C information, not only random things do.
Neither does Shannon. Shannon only deals with message integrity, K/C with compressability and redundancy.
In Shannon's, but he does not have a monopoly there.
Tell me, what effect on the content of Shannon information would have an unintended change of the genome which grants a new ability such as metabolizing a new source of food?
The first imperfect replicator.
That implies that the human brain was a goal to evolution that it attempte to achieve. But that's not the case - it doesn't make more sense than throwing a few thousand dice and then afterwards wondering about the low probability of this particular outcome. If someone 3 billion years ago had predicted the emergence of the human brain then i'd be impressed, but afterwards it doesn't mean anything.
A process of evolution began with the first imperfect replicator. Strictly that one wasn't alive yet, it was just a self sustaining chemical reaction. The theory of evolution begins with the first single celled organism.
A decrease in Shannon information means nothing else than that there are mutations. Without that decrease, there would be no mutations, as any mutation by definition is a decrease of Shannon information. This decrease of Shannon information however does not allow any conclusions about the effect of these mutations on the organism. As i previously said, since any change to the genome is considered a loss of information according to Shannon, one can get from amoeba to men with no increase of information whatsoever. All it takes are modifications of the genome, and these each count as a loss of information by definition.
And the 2nd LoT rules out local decreases in entropy, even if these are accounted for with an at least as big increase elsewhere (i.e. in the sun)?
It's a philosophical thing, not a physical law. Else it'd be disproved by e.g. avalanches - big things triggered by smaller ones. And quantum physics finish it off, as there are things which happen without a cause on the quantum level.
How can this law supposedly coexist with your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics? It's your own line of reasoning that entropy equals disorder - and disorder is more complex than order.
How about evolutionary algorithms by the way? They use imperfect replication and differential reproductive success to design new things - among them electrical circuits which exceed the performance of the best human designs. Is this not "new information"?
E.g. these ones: http://www.genetic-programming.com/hc/gkl.html
http://www.genetic-programming.com/hc/nonpid.html
http://www.genetic-programming.com/hc/p ... rules.html
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #130
Unless, of course your assuming God made the first imperfect replicator.
If this is the case, then we can turn to more of a theological discussion.
In Shannon's, but he does not have a monopoly there.
But what we're discussing here is a highly specified enzyme being
degraded into a less specific compound (loss of info) and two other less
specified compounds increasing specificity (increase):
The net result is a loss in specificity.
What this is telling you is evolution doesn't happen.
R = H(x) - Hy(x)
I never claimed that disorder is more complex than order.
Maximum entropy, perfect equilibrium in the organism, is achieved at
death.
And this makes sense. How could there be anything more at equilibrium
with itself than a cold, dead organism that isn‘t functioning at all?
Furthermore, how could anything be more disorganized than this same
organism? Nothing is organized adequately enough for anything to work. Yet
it is ordered because there is no chaos. The Chaos/Order balance is dealing
with an entirely different concept than K/C complexity, which deals with
randomness and efficiency in transmission of a message.
Complexity Theory and K/C Complexity are two different animals. Chaos
Theory, included in Complexity Theory, assumes intitial conditions.
It is important to remember that the uncertainty in the dynamical outcome
does not arise from any randomness in the equations of motion--since they
are completely deterministic, but rather from the lack of measuring the
infinite accuracy in the initial conditions (starting to sound familiar).
Claude was way ahead of his time.
In each instance, intelligence is involved to create new info. A gain in Info is
always derivived from intelligence. Just because the equations are named
"evolutionary" algorithms, doesn't imply that natural forces are involved.
R = H(x) - Hy(x)
How then do you call yourself a Christian, if you take such
extraordinary steps to deny intelligent involvement in our existence.
Your logic defies your proclaimed faith in Jesus. You try your best to exclude
any intelligent involvement in our existantance. You fight against
Shannon's Theory, though you provided no adequate credentials to do so.
Your fighting with the fact that God designed us.
Your a Wolf in Sheep clothing.
The minimal belief system or a Christian as defined by Jesus Himself
includes:
There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.
The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.
Jesus Christ, God's only Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born a
virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died an atoning death upon a cross, raised
from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father where He will
one day return to the earth.
That man is in a lost and depraved condition by nature, and is in need of
the new birth by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
In justification by faith apart from the works of the law.
That salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, to whom we must respond
with repentance, faith, and obedience. Through Christ we come into a right
relationship with God, our sins are forgiven, and we receive eternal life.
In your current state, your an anti-Christ in the term's purest sense.
An entity presenting itself as an adherent to the Christian faith, yet
fights against it ( Remember, one of Satan's names is the "Great Deceiver").
It's not too late. Christ's work on the cross has presented
the opportunity for repentance. You have the intelligence, but do you have
the Heart? You choose to fight against the Faith, though you have the talent
to confirm it. I've been there Bro. Why not use your God given talents to
confirm the Faith?
Peace
I've given you three references of replicators being observed to emerge.
Thanks for proving my point - now you've said yourself that evolution is perfectly compatible with Shannon IT. Else i'd like you to show me an evolutionary process which requires an increase of Shannon information.
If you define it like that then you need to establish that the genome does contain information in first instance. Else you're begging the question.
How so? Show me a part of the theory of evolution which requires an increase of Shannon information.
Huh? You have no idea what you are talking about. If dead organisms have no workable energy left (=maximum entropy), why do we eat them as food?
What are you talking about?
What particular part of the random number generator used for the algorithms don't you like then?
I do not deny that God made us as he wanted to - i just deny that He left fingerprints while doing so. That's a huge difference.
I'm not fighting that theory at all - you just keep ignoring my explainations why it is not a problem for evolution at all.
Where did Jesus define this? Particularly things like that one isn't a Christian if one doesn't accept the virgin birth part. Just as an example, i do accept it by the way.
So what? That does not mean that there aren't different interpretations of it - and you don't have a monopoly there.
And i don't think the bible is infallible...there are errors in it, some even apologetics websites concede to be there, others are attempted to be explained away with mindboggling excuses.
Furthermore...what constitutes today's Bible was assembled into that form centuries after Jesus lived - do you really think that this is what Jesus referred to?
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #132
Of intelligence producing replicators, not random forces.
So instead of admitting evolution is wrong, you claim it takes a
decrease in information for something to evolve.
To me, that's nonsense...
Yup, God's fingerprints. His little program for each species of living
organism... Information always originates with intelligence.
I do believe God has left His fingerprints.
Intelligent scientists are without excuse.
If your claiming that imperfect replicators evolved into human beings, then
yes, much more info is required (i.e.-for the brain, the heart, the liver,
muscles, etc...). However, ToE depends on mutations.
If R=H(x)-Hy(x) where Hy(x) is the uncertainty after
receipt, then, applied to biology, transmission errors,
frameshift errors...mutations either have a neutral or negative (more)
effect on the conditional entropy Hy(x). This in turn increases the amount of
uncertainty at receipt...or a decrease in information.
Is evolution magically immune to Shannon's Theory?
Is evolution magically immune to The Second Law.
I say it takes more faith to believe this than to believe that organisms
were created in their final form.
We're talking in pure Complexity Theory (more specifically, Chaos Theory)
terms here. Maximum entropy, perfect equilibrium in the organism,
is achieved at death. We're not talking absolute entropy in the individual
molecules, but the entropy of the organism as a whole. How could there be
anything more at equilibrium with itself than a cold, dead organism that isn‘t
functioning at all? Furthermore, how could anything be more disorganized
than this same organism? Nothing is organized adequately enough for
anything to work. Yet it is ordered because there is no chaos.
Claude's intuitively referring to Chaos Theory (though he didn't specifically
name it).
If you believe the Bible is not infallible, then of course you can just pick and
choose what you think is authoritative and what is manmade. The various
writers claim the opposite though:
Isaiah 1:2 - The Lord has spoken.
Jeremiah 10:1,2 - Hear the word which the Lord speaks. Thus says the Lord...
Ezekiel 1:3 - The word of the Lord came expressly.
Hosea 1:1,2 - The word of the Lord that came ... the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said...
Jonah 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Jonah.
Micah 1:1 - The word of the Lord that came to Micah.
Zech. 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Zechariah.
Joel 1:2; Amos 1:3,6, etc; Obad. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Hab. 2:2; Deuteronomy
30:9,10; Numbers 12:6-8; 23:5,12,16,19;
1 Corinthians 14:37 - The things I write are commands of Lord.
Ephesians 3:3-5 - The things Paul wrote were made known to him by revelation. Formerly these things were not known but have now been revealed by the Spirit to apostles & prophets.
1 Thessalonians 4:15 - We say by the word of the Lord.
1 Timothy 4:1 - The Spirit expressly says.
[2 Thessalonians 3:12; John 12:48-50; Acts 16:32; Romans 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:5]
Matthew 1:22 - A quotation was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.
Matthew 2:15 - Another passage was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.
Acts 1:16 - The Spirit spoke by the mouth of David.
Acts 28:25 - The Holy Spirit spoke by Isaiah ... prophet.
Hebrews 1:1,2 - God spoke in times past to the fathers by prophets. But now He has spoken to us by His Son.
Matthew 15:4 - Jesus Himself confirmed that Scriptures were from God. He quoted the Law revealed through Moses and said it was what God commanded.
Matthew 22:29-32 - He said the Scriptures were spoken by God.
Luke 10:16 - He also confirmed the inspiration of the New Testament for He told the apostles who wrote it: He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me and rejects Him who sent Me
John 16:13 - He promised the men who penned the New Testament that the Spirit would guide them into all truth
Jeremiah 14:14 - If a man speaks as though he has a message from God when God really did not speak to him and the message is just his own idea, that man is a false prophet and deserves to be punished and rejected as a prophet (23:16,26; Ezekiel 13:2-7,17).
Ezekiel 3:26,27 - A prophet was not to speak until God opens his mouth ... When God did move him to speak it would be a thus says the Lord God.
Matthew 10:19,20 - It is not you who speaks but the spirit of the Father speaks in you.
1 Corinthians 2:4,5 - Preaching was not with words of human wisdom. Their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but power of God. Faith is based on the message preached (Romans 10:17). To the extent the message is human in origin, then the faith rests in the men who originated it. Paul expressly did not want their faith to rest on human wisdom but in God's wisdom and power.
Galatians 1:8-12 - The gospel came not from man but was revealed from Jesus. To preach another is to be accursed. Hence, to preach a message that is human in origin is to bring God's curse upon us.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 - The message is not word of men but the word of God.
2 Peter 1:20,21 - Prophecy never came by will of man, but holy men spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit.
Revelation 22:18,19 - If men add their teachings to the book, God will add the plagues written. They were not just forbidden to write something entirely human. They were forbidden to take a message from God and then add something human to it.
Exodus 24:3,4,8 - Moses gave the words the Lord spoke.
Deuteronomy 18:18-22 - God put His words in prophet's mouth.
2 Samuel 23:2 - The Spirit's word was on my tongue.
Isaiah 51:16 - I [God] put my words in your mouth.
Isaiah 59:21 - My words which I put in your mouth.
Jeremiah 1:4-9 - I have put My words in your mouth.
Jeremiah 30:1-4 - Write all the words I have spoken.
Jeremiah 36:1-4 - Write all the words I have spoken.
Ezekiel 3:4 - Speak with My words to them
Zech. 7:12 -The words the Lord sent by His Spirit.
Matthew 10:19,20 - Given by Spirit what and how to speak.
Psalm 19:7-9 - God's word is perfect, right, true.
Psalm 33:4 - God's word is right & done faithfully.
Psalm 119:128,142,160 - All God's precepts are right.
John 17:17 - God's word is truth.
Romans 3:4 - Let God be true, though men may lie.
Titus 1:2,3 - God, who can't lie, manifested the word.
Hebrews 6:18 - It is impossible for God to lie.
Revelation 21:5 - The words written are true and faithful.
The most important source of verifying the credibilty of scripture is from
Jesus himself.
Disbelief is progressive. Whenever we say, "I know the Bible teaches this
but I still cannot accept it as true," we have opened the door for more and
more unbelief. We have started down the slippery slope. There is no logical
stopping point. Soon we deny more and more miracles or more and more
doctrines, etc., because we have undermined the foundation of belief.
Matthew 19:4
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made
them male and female,'
Jesus
Peace
First off, chemistry is not random.
The only intelligence involved was people putting chemicals into glasses. The replicators then formed all by themselves.
And what was wrong with the random number generators used in the genetic algorithms which produced circuits that exceed the capabilities of the best human designs?
You even have agreed that evolution would require nothing but a decrease of shannon information!
Shannon information is nothing but message integrity. Without imperfect transmission, there can be no mutation. Without mutation, there is no evolution. And any mutation by definition is a decrease of Shannon information, regardless of its effects on the organism.
That only makes no sense if one equivocates Shannon information with other information concepts, but i already have explained why that is not possible.
You completely ignored my point. If you claim that information can only come from intelligence, then you need to show that DNA contains information according to that definition in first instance. Else you're begging the question.
Much more information, ok - but not Shannon information.
The evolution of e.g. a liver can take place with nothing but modifications to the prior genome, which each by definition is a decrease of Shannon information.
As explained before, Shannon information is about nothing but message integrity. Do you disagree that the intended message "1+1=5" being mutated to "1+1=2" would be a decrease of Shannon information? It's not what was intended to be submitted.
It isn't immune to neither of these - but it doesn't have to, as there is no conflict in first instance.
And if you say that organisms were created as is, how do you explain the diversity of life after supposedly most was wiped out during the worldwise flood? You need evolution on steroids to account for that. A worldwide floid didn't happen anyway though.
I'd like to see your math. That's purely an appeal to emotion, without any actual substance. For maximum entropy in the organism as a whole eqach molecule in it has to at maximum entropy as well. And there is no such thing as "equilibrium with oneself" in these theories. You're trying to distract from the issue.
Sources? And how is this relevant anyway?
So the Bible says that the Bible is infallible? If it's not, then these authors who said so may be wrong as well. Furthermore, things like the global flood have been falsified by Christian geologists. Rabbits don't chew their cud either. Whom killed Elhanan? Goliath or Goliath's brother? How did David kill Goliath? With a sling or with a sword?
1 Samuel 17:49-50
1 Samuel 17:51
Allegory.
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #134
With a sling.
After he killed Goliath with the sling and rock, he chopped off Goliath's
head with Goliath's own sword in front of the whole Philistine army.
1 Samuel 17:49-50
Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.
So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.
1 Samuel 17:51
David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.
So what's your criteria for determining if what Jesus says is fact, or just
allegorical? You could say this about everything He said. This is the slippery
slope I was referring to in our last post:
Do you have a reference for the experiment details? I'm sure there was
more intelligence involved than just pouring a bunch of different chemicals
into glasses. Were specific chemicals used? Were they used in specific
quantities? Were they added in certain sequences? Was the temperature
controlled? Are the chemicals used readily available naturally, or were they
processed ahead of time by intelligence? Again, a reference would help me
understand your point.
Right, implying it does not occur. It's impossible.
Quote:
If your claiming that imperfect replicators evolved into human beings, then
yes, much more info is required (i.e.-for the brain, the heart, the liver,
muscles, etc...). However, ToE depends on mutations.
If R=H(x)-Hy(x) where Hy(x) is the uncertainty after
receipt, then, applied to biology, transmission errors,
frameshift errors...mutations either have a neutral or negative (more)
effect on the conditional entropy Hy(x). This in turn increases the amount of
uncertainty at receipt...or a decrease in information.
I disagree, the evolution of a liver from a genome that has mutated trillions
upon trillions of times is impossible. Each mutation would result in the
genome gaining more and more entropy and thus less and less
information. In your example
"Do you disagree that the intended message
'1+1=5' being mutated to '1+1=2' would be a decrease of Shannon
information? It's not what was intended to be submitted"
Information has been lost. A good example of what you stating here, is if a
student takes a math test, and puts down '1+1=5', and the instructor
misreads the answer '5' for a '2'. The instructor counts the answer correct,
though it should have been marked wrong. An error in reception has
occurred, which increase the messages entropy, thus decreasing it's info.
Two of each species was saved via the ark.
The ark's size, big enough to carry two (or seven for some) of each
land-dwelling, air-breathing animal, testifies for a global flood. Building such
a huge ship for a local flood for which there was ample warning would be
ludicrous. We can go into more detail about the world wide flood and it's
implications if you like. The geological record agrees with it and the fossil
record agrees with it for starters.
Schrodinger as the first to posit that maximum entropy--perfect equilibrium
in the organism, is achieved at death.
Schrodinger's equation follows:
http://www.missioncollege.org/depts/phy ... age016.gif
Schrodinger's equation shows all of the wave like properties of matter and
was one of greatest achievements of 20th century science.
It is used in physics and most of chemistry to deal with problems about the
atomic structure of matter. It is an extremely powerful mathematical tool
and the whole basis of wave mechanics.
Peace
Please be a bit more careful with the quote brackets. Many things are tagged incorrectly.
student takes a math test, and puts down '1+1=5', and the instructor
misreads the answer '5' for a '2'. The instructor counts the answer correct,
though it should have been marked wrong. An error in reception has
occurred, which increase the messages entropy, thus decreasing it's info. [/quote:fa1ea]
And that is all that evolution is about. In this case the error helped the student pass the test - just like errors in the transmission of the genome during reproduction can help the offspring to survive and to pass on its own genes.
The ark supposedly had a volume of about 40.000 cubic metres. That's about 40 land dwelling, air breathing animals per cubic metre (and that's just the named species, and no insects yet!), plus food for a year! Quite crowded, isn't it?
That'd be like going from "it's raining outside, therefore the street is wet" to "the street is wet, therefore it's raining outside". It doesn't have to rain outside for the street to be wet. While organisms at thermodynamical equilibrium are necessarily dead, dead organisms do not have to have thermodynamical equilibrium. That's why we eat them, after all. Else that'd be pointless.
That's already a "corrected" version. In the KJV for example it reads like this;Charlie Hatchett said:
It quite clearly states that he "slew" Goliath twice.
If evidence contradicts one particular interpretation, it has to be discarded for another. I choose to interprete Genesis allegorically instead of literally because evidence contradicts it. Just like the "the devil took Jesus to an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth" is no longer interpreted literally because we know that there is no such mountain.
I am quite sure that all these things happened - but no planned mechanisms for synthesis were used.
How so? If evolution does not require an increase of shannon information, in what way does shannon IT pose a problem for evolution? I honestly cannot follow your line of reasoning there. I have absolutely no idea how you come to that conclusion.
Then you need to show that DNA does contain such information.
Less information only if the original unchanged version is defined to have the hightest possible information content.
Information has been lost. A good example of what you stating here, is if a
student takes a math test, and puts down '1+1=5', and the instructor
misreads the answer '5' for a '2'. The instructor counts the answer correct,
though it should have been marked wrong. An error in reception has
occurred, which increase the messages entropy, thus decreasing it's info. [/quote:fa1ea]
And that is all that evolution is about. In this case the error helped the student pass the test - just like errors in the transmission of the genome during reproduction can help the offspring to survive and to pass on its own genes.
I'd like to see that math...and keep in mind, they need food as well. And the excrements need to be removed.
The ark supposedly had a volume of about 40.000 cubic metres. That's about 40 land dwelling, air breathing animals per cubic metre (and that's just the named species, and no insects yet!), plus food for a year! Quite crowded, isn't it?
Not at all...but that's a matter for another thread.
No. Schrödinger stated that at thermodynamical equilibrium an organism necessarily is dead, as no metabolism is possible anymore. But you cannot turn that around.
That'd be like going from "it's raining outside, therefore the street is wet" to "the street is wet, therefore it's raining outside". It doesn't have to rain outside for the street to be wet. While organisms at thermodynamical equilibrium are necessarily dead, dead organisms do not have to have thermodynamical equilibrium. That's why we eat them, after all. Else that'd be pointless.
...and how does it make any statement about the thermodynamical properties of living and dead organisms? Hint: It doesn't at all.
A
ArtGuy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #136
jwu said:
Sure there is. It's just a four-dimensional mountain. ;)
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #137
Lol...well, that's certainly one possibility. Very creative there art.
I'll answer your claims in the morning jwu...heading out to do some digging
this evening.
Peace
http://www.preclovis.com
C
Charlie Hatchett
Guest
- Thread starter
- #138
Can you be more specific, I'll go back and change anything I've misquoted.
Thanks.
smote: To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a
weapon.
slew: To kill violently.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com
The NIV is a more correct translation of the Ancient Hebrew. Due to
archeological finds between translations, the NIV writers enjoyed
advances in understanding and translating this ancient langauge.
The Textus Receptus upon which the KJV is mainly based was the edition
produced by Erasmus in 1516, with further work by Stephanus (d 1559) and
Theodore Beza (d 1605).
Pretty cool...modern science, once again confirming the accuracy of God's
word.
I think the people of Jesus day were well aware that they could not perceive
a mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms of the earth. Why, if their
making a testimony to truth of Jesus' diety, becoming fully man, dying for
our sins, and ascending into heaven, would they write such an obvious
"contradiction".
The word ‘world’ used here comes from the Greek word, ‘kosmos’.
Kosmos means arrangement of stars, the universe, or earth.
κοσμου is the original word which then translated into English.
Matthew 4:8 (Greek)
παλιν παραλαμβανει αυτον ο διαβολος εις ορος υψηλον λιαν και δεικνυσιν
αυτω πασας τας βασιλειας του κοσμου και την δοξαν αυτων
Again, a closer study of what appears to be impossible in the bible, is
actually just a problem in translation from it's original text (increase in
entropy, and a decrease in info :wink: ). This is why most serious bible
scholars read the Greek text versus any translation.
Interestingly, most astronomical observatories are upon very high
mountains, to obtain much clearer views of the universe.
Not really.
This is a huge topic, and we can debate a number of issues. How many
animals were really needed to repopulate the earth ( i.e.- the cat family, the
dog family, the human family, etc...). Bringing juvenile animals aboard
versus full grown...etc...
For evolution to occur (which it doesn't), it would require an increase in
information. An increase in information can only occur when intelligence is
involved. Mutations decrease information. This is the very mechanism or
catalyst on which evolution supposedly depends. No mutation has ever
been shown to increase information...for a reason.
Yet the student has less information. He now believes 1+1=5. The students
that were graded accurately have more information. Now he could get back
on track by subsequent accurate testing ( synonymous substitution), but
never more than what the original info contained.
The way organisms maintain themselves stationary at a fairly high level of
orderliness really consists in continually sucking orderliness from its
environment.
In the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed
upon well enough.. The extremely well-ordered state of matter (lack of
Chaos) in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them
as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -
not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it.
The point is, it is the outside order that maintains the negative entropy, not
the amount of entropy.
Maximum entropy, perfect equilibrium in the organism, is achieved at
death because the order from outside is no longer exchanged. We don't eat
animals or plants because their not at thermodynamical equilibrium, but
because their ordered, or lack Chaos.
Peace
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
- Thread starter
- #139
Not all change is progress (social Darwinism)
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 787#249787
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 787#249787
And it says "slew" twice. One can be slain only once, methinks.
So if corrections are necessary and there are conflicting manuscripts, how can it be considered infallible? How about gross mistakes like cud chewing rabbits?
mountains, to obtain much clearer views of the universe.
That's all nice, but there still is no mountain on earth from which one can see all of it, be it kingdoms of the earth or the kosmos or whatever. It doesn't solve the problem in any way.
From the ark article:
So the author of that article does accept speciation, different to you. Hence you cannot use it in any way, as it contradicts your own premises. And in order to get millions of species from 8000 one needs evolution on steroids...
...geological falsifications of a worldwide flood and a young earth...
You're equivocating various flavours of information theory again. Mutations decrease shannon information. But evolution does not require an increase of shannon information. What particular part of evoltution does require an increase of shannon information, i.e. that the received DNA strand is "more original" than the original; that it is "less changed than unchanged"? Be specific!That's all that shannon IT is about.
There are other flavours of information theory, but shannon's laws only apply to shannon's IT. As previously mentioned, in KC IT an increase of information is allowed. And i have already shown how Spetner's information concept is incompatible with Shannon's.
What the student believes or not is of no consequence to him passing the test - and only in the test does it matter. Furthermore you're changing the definition of information there - whether something that the student believes to be correct actually is right is not Shannon information anymore.
Again, let's take a look at the opposite. Someone got a calculation wrong and sends 1+1=5 to a friend. During the transmission this was disturbed to 1+1=2, a loss of shannon information. But does the friend in the end not have more information than if the undisturbed but factually incorrect message had reached him? These are two entirely different concepts of information.
You can't be serious...that's absolutely ludicrous, and you completely made it up. A more simple version: If dead stuff is at thermodynamical equilibrium, how come we can burn it?