[_ Old Earth _] Five Pillars of Evolution Compared with Creation

[Charlie Hatchett]

But you presupposed that that would happen...

Because of Shannon's Theory (which Barb has pointed out, works in practical applications, not just hypothetical constructs):

Information is maximized when uncertainty (entropy), after receipt, is zero.

Entropy measures lack of information. The higher the entropy, the less information. In it's inverse, entropy measures information.

From a conservational point of view it does make sense. If the sender did not intend these features to appear, then they are a disturbance of the message and thus a loss of information.

Right. Imagine how important this is. Without conservation of information, you have no replication of the brain, eyes, arms, etc... or they come out screwed up.

If you have a part of an email that you wanted to send out changed to "E=MC²", then you would consider that a loss of information simply because the receiver didn't receive what you wanted him to, would you not? He missed some information which you deemed important in order to receive this instead.

Right, uncertainty at the receiver remains the same, because no receipt of info occurs.

But then you contradict yourself! If you argue that something which decreases binding specificy is a loss of information, how can something which increases binding specifity not be a gain then?

Remember, it's the amount of uncertainty removed after receipt. You can't go wrong, if you keep this rule in mind. You, hypothetically, could have one mutation that garbles the original message, and then a subsequent mutation, that corrects the prior mutation. This results in a net wash.

And how would uncertainty be increased there unless one applies the conservational understanding which i explained above there? In which any mutation is a decrease of information by definition, no matter what it does

.

Because, as we discussed earlier, Shannon's Theory is based on conservation. And remember, Shannon's Theory is the only info theory that works in the real world. Other's are just mathematical constructs.

If you disagree, then please give me a example of a single mutation which you would accept as having increased the information content of the genome. What would it have to do? How do you measure its change of the information content of the genome? Apparently you don't like binding specifity anymore.

According to Shannon's Theory, a mutation, by definition, is a loss of information. Thus, there is no example...only wand waving.

And without intelligence, information means nothing.

Right, which indicates that genetic information is the product of intelligence.

You didn't address my refutation of your objections to that simulation which resulted in an increase of information. Unless i am to take that binding specifity is not a measure of information...

You showed me no increase in information except in the hypothetical: After 200 generations. It would be interesting to see what the simulation produces when you program in a known, new allele in bacteria. That would be observable over a realistic time frame. Try that, and then lets compare it to observation. That should give us an idea of the validity of the simulation.
If observation and the simulation are in conflict, then we know the simulation is not valid.

Catch up with you over the weekend, bro. 8-)

 

[jwu]

Entropy measures lack of information. The higher the entropy, the less information. In it's inverse, entropy measures information.

That's not what

Right. Imagine how important this is. Without conservation of information, you have no replication of the brain, eyes, arms, etc... or they come out screwed up.

With conservation of information you cannot develop these either though. Any new development is a violation of the conservation, as the original data must get changed. That's my whole point.

Right, uncertainty at the receiver remains the same, because no receipt of info occurs.

So if an organism was "intended" to have just some light sensitive spot, then a change of the genome which puts a lens in front of it would be not be an additional receipt of information. Because it wasn't intended, just like the E=MC² in the email.

Remember, it's the amount of uncertainty removed after receipt. You can't go wrong, if you keep this rule in mind. You, hypothetically, could have one mutation that garbles the original message, and then a subsequent mutation, that corrects the prior mutation. This results in a net wash.

That doesn't solve your problem. Uncertainty about what exactly has to be removed?
And how is a regain of information not an increase from a temporarily lower state?

Because, as we discussed earlier, Shannon's Theory is based on conservation.

And exactly that makes it inapplicable to the question if no new mechanisms in an organism can arise, because from a conservational point of view that wiould be a loss if information, as the intended original message gets disturbed for this.

Other's are just mathematical constructs.

The others work quite well in compression algorithms and so on.

According to Shannon's Theory, a mutation, by definition, is a loss of information. Thus, there is no example...only wand waving.

And with that you utterly crush your own point. You concede that evolution does not require an increase of shannon information - because any mutation by definition is a loss of it, and evolution does not require anything but mutation and selection.

Right, which indicates that genetic information is the product of intelligence.

...and which part of a cell which transcribes DNA is an intelligent agent?

You showed me no increase in information except in the hypothetical: After 200 generations. It would be interesting to see what the simulation produces when you program in a known, new allele in bacteria. That would be observable over a realistic time frame. Try that, and then lets compare it to observation. That should give us an idea of the validity of the simulation.
If observation and the simulation are in conflict, then we know the simulation is not valid

And what would you say if the formation of new binding spots has been observed directly? Would you then concede that an increase of information has taken place?

 

[Barbarian]

Because of Shannon's Theory (which Barb has pointed out, works in practical applications, not just hypothetical constructs):

Information is maximized when uncertainty (entropy), after receipt, is zero.

You have it backwards. Shannnon equated entropy and information. That's why his version works, and yours doesn't.

In information theory, the more possible messages you could be receiving, the more uncertainty you have about what actual message you're getting. If you had to track the motion of each atom in the piston of an engine, you could just say they're all moving in the same direction. If you had to track the motion of each atom in the hot exhaust, you would be stuck with lots more information. More information means more entropy.
http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/shannon.html

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:
Entropy measures lack of information. The higher the entropy, the less information. In it's inverse, entropy measures information

jwu:
That's not what

...?????

charlie:
Right. Imagine how important this is. Without conservation of information, you have no replication of the brain, eyes, arms, etc... or they come out screwed up.

jwu:
With conservation of information you cannot develop these either though. Any new development is a violation of the conservation, as the original data must get changed. That's my whole point.

Right, which indicates ToE is impossible.

So if an organism was "intended" to have just some light sensitive spot, then a change of the genome which puts a lens in front of it would be not be an additional receipt of information. Because it wasn't intended, just like the E=MC² in the email.

A random mutation could never produce the specs necessary to produce, repetitively, the precision optical lense, and, at the same time, provide the appropriate instructions for hard-wiring the lense into into the nervous system and circulatory system, etc...again, repetitively. Then a very complex code is necessary to transmit the signal produced to the brain, and instructions to enable the brain to understand the signal. Even with man’s very focused intelligence, this feat remains infinitely out of grasp. Heck, we can’t even make a single strand of DNA, a single cell, etc...

charlie:
Remember, it's the amount of uncertainty removed after receipt. You can't go wrong, if you keep this rule in mind. You, hypothetically, could have one mutation that garbles the original message, and then a subsequent mutation, that corrects the prior mutation. This results in a net wash.

jwu:
That doesn't solve your problem. Uncertainty about what exactly has to be removed?

Uncertainty of the message when received.

jwu:
And exactly that makes it inapplicable to the question if no new mechanisms in an organism can arise, because from a conservational point of view that wiould be a loss if information, as the intended original message gets disturbed for this... The others work quite well in compression algorithms and so on.

It’s applicable to the question at hand, and shows that ToE is impossible. Shannon’s Theory, which is the theory used for communication of information, proves ToE is impossible. Just because the applicable theory doesn’t give you the answer you want, doesn’t justify that the theory is inapplicable.

charlie:
According to Shannon's Theory, a mutation, by definition, is a loss of information. Thus, there is no example...only wand waving.

jwu:
And with that you utterly crush your own point. You concede that evolution does not require an increase of shannon information - because any mutation by definition is a loss of it, and evolution does not require anything but mutation and selection.

I believe Shannon’s Theory crushes your overall origin’s model..ToE is impossible. As you stated, ToE supposedly requires no new information, to replicate millions, and billions of times, with amazing accuracy, very complex structures, such as the brain, nervous system, reproductive system, digestive system, endocrine system, mucular- skelatal system, cardio-vascular system, endocrine system, ...infinitum, from a simple, self-replicating, sub-cellular piece of matter. To me, this is nonsense.

charlie:
Right, which indicates that genetic information is the product of intelligence.

jwu:
...and which part of a cell which transcribes DNA is an intelligent agent?

There is no intelligence in the machine, just like their is no intelligence in a high caliber naval fighter aircraft. It’s the “product†of intelligence...like a nano machine. It operates on information, based on design. Imagine the importance of conservation of information in a high end fighter aircraft, which require infinitely less info to operate than a human body. Humans can’t even fly high-end aircraft, without the aid of super-computers processing designed info.

Imagine how much info was involved in the following covert operation we executed:

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... akeout.wmv

Yet, this example pales, infinitely, to the amount of information necessary to operate even the simplest, single cell organism.

jwu:

And what would you say if the formation of new binding spots has been observed directly? Would you then concede that an increase of information has taken place?

I contend information has been lost, because the new binding spots are mutations.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

barb:

You have it backwards. Shannnon equated entropy and information. That's why his version works, and yours doesn't.

Information Is Not Entropy,
Information Is Not Uncertainty!

Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute
Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
Molecular Information Theory Group
Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
toms@ncifcrf.gov
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

- Information is always a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).

-R = Hbefore - Hafter

where H is the Shannon uncertainty and R is information



-The mistake is almost always made by people who are not actually trying to use the measure

-if someone says that information = uncertainty = entropy, then they are confused...

All right guys. I'll catch up with ya'll next weekend.

Peace

8-)

 

[jwu]

...?????

I somehow must have stopped typing there or deleted it or whatever.
Entropy is a viable measure of surprisingness, and exactly is what information is about.

[quote:fbf24]With conservation of information you cannot develop these either though. Any new development is a violation of the conservation, as the original data must get changed. That's my whole point.

Right, which indicates ToE is impossible. [/quote:fbf24]No, you don't get it. The reason why these cannot develop with conservation of information is that in that case no mutations can happen at all, because any mutation would be a violation of that by definition. If no conservation of information happens (as it is the case in reality), then mutations can happen and form new things. From a conservational point of view that would be a loss of information though, not an increase.

A random mutation could never produce the specs necessary to produce, repetitively, the precision optical lense, and, at the same time, provide the appropriate instructions for hard-wiring the lense into into the nervous system and circulatory system, etc...again, repetitively.

Actually a gradual development of the eye is well understood. And ti doesn't have to produce e.g. a precision lense in one step either, just one that is better than no lense at all. A blob of slime already can do that. You're setting up a straw man.

Then a very complex code is necessary to transmit the signal produced to the brain, and instructions to enable the brain to understand the signal. Even with man’s very focused intelligence, this feat remains infinitely out of grasp. Heck, we can’t even make a single strand of DNA, a single cell, etc...

Actually we can make DNA...

Uncertainty of the message when received.

Uncertainty about what the original unmutated DNA of the parent is, isn't it?

It’s applicable to the question at hand, and shows that ToE is impossible. Shannon’s Theory, which is the theory used for communication of information, proves ToE is impossible.

Nope...Shannon's theory just states that mutations do happen, it makes no statement about what effects these have on the organism.

Just because the applicable theory doesn’t give you the answer you want, doesn’t justify that the theory is inapplicable.

There is one huge problem with your line of reasoning. You conflate several understandings of information. Shannon's works, which basically just state that "no message can be more original than the original", then binding specifity as a measure of information , and finally a "gut feeling" that new structures require new information, which you so far completely failed to show on a genetic level (using the definition which would require them to be more original than the original).

I've asked you several times to name a mutation which is proposed by the theory of evolution which requires an increase of information. You replied with things like "there is no such thing". So there is no mutation proposed by the theory of evolution which requires an increase of information? I want just one specific example about what "my" theory supposedly claims.

I believe Shannon’s Theory crushes your overall origin’s model..ToE is impossible. As you stated, ToE supposedly requires no new information, to replicate millions, and billions of times, with amazing accuracy, very complex structures, such as the brain, nervous system, reproductive system, digestive system, endocrine system, mucular- skelatal system, cardio-vascular system, endocrine system, ...infinitum, from a simple, self-replicating, sub-cellular piece of matter. To me, this is nonsense.

No, it requires no message to be more original than the original. That's all what conservation of information is about. If an organism suddenly developed a new organ, then this would be a change of the original message, and since the original message is defined to have the highest possible content of information it would be a loss thereof. You have admitted that yourself in the E=MC² example in an email, but now you conflate that with a gut feeling, "to me, this is nonsense", that there should be an increase. But that has no connection to the information theory at hand. Using other definitions of information that may be so, that it requires an increase of information, but not when using a definition where the unchanged message is defined to have the highest possible content of information.

You cannot even give me a number of the total information content of a single organism!

There is no intelligence in the machine, just like their is no intelligence in a high caliber naval fighter aircraft. It’s the “product†of intelligence...like a nano machine. It operates on information, based on design.

Yet we use evolututionary algorithms to design exactly such things...and besides, this is argueing agains abiogenesis, not evolution.

Imagine the importance of conservation of information in a high end fighter aircraft, which require infinitely less info to operate than a human body. Humans can’t even fly high-end aircraft, without the aid of super-computers processing designed info.

Appeal to emotion, unfitting analogy. The workings in a cell are not comparable to the workings in human technology. Digital logic typically breaks down instantly if something is changed. In a cell there are tolerances, it's fuzzy logic.

I contend information has been lost, because the new binding spots are mutations.

And what if these new binding spots result in the emergence of new features?


Is the following a correct summary of your line of reasoning?
"Structures require information. Information can only degrade, therefore no new structures can form. Mutations which would result in the formation of new structures therefore don't happen."

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

All Life Comes from Life

This is obvious even to the unlearned. Seeds produce plants. Animals reproduce themselves. Everywhere one sees life reproducing. Experiments are unnecessary.

In fact, evolutionists will agree with creationists on this. How could anyone disagree? Yet, if we, agree that life comes only from life, why do evolutionists insist that at one time it did not? They are being inconsistent. And, to try to prove their point they have spent millions of dollars of private and government funds, all to no avail.

I never understood why creationists were so afraid of Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution theorty explains how life has developed and changed. NOT the origination of life or the universe... this is key to understand. There are other theories that try to explain how life began which really falls more with chemists then with biologists. Lets just say, that it is to do with carbon water and electricity. But i degress, one can believe in both evolution and creationism as long as they admit that evolution was used by god to create life.

 

[LittleNipper]

I never understood why creationists were so afraid of Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution theorty explains how life has developed and changed. NOT the origination of life or the universe... this is key to understand. There are other theories that try to explain how life began which really falls more with chemists then with biologists. Lets just say, that it is to do with carbon water and electricity. But i degress, one can believe in both evolution and creationism as long as they admit that evolution was used by god to create life.

The theory of evolution is being used in public education by secular humanists (people who are man centered in their thinking) to explain away GOD without HIS mention. The Creationist realizes that GOD has provided for each creature the means to propagate and survive within an ever changing environment. The staunch evolutionist sees his theory as a way to explain the existance of man as part of a complex natural developement from inert materials over eons past. Their mantra always seem to begin, "Millions ans millions of years ago......" This of course makes whatever they say afterward appear very scientific..... The simple fact is that scientific observations have NOTHING to show or demonstrate. Evolution is a mode of faith that rests in the opinion that different animal organisms have been eating each other from their point of origin. The is the antithesis of the Biblical creation story which clearly teaches that animals and man ate plants, fruits and vegetables prior to man's FALL which placed all creation under Satan's maniputaltion and establishing a dog eat dog environment to the extent GOD allowed it to proceed. Evolution may scientifically be applied to the developement of the vast array of variety within kinds, but the misapplication arises where evolution is taught as the way the different kinds came to be. The Christian must see this as Anti-biblical, anti-Christian, and untimately Anti-Christ.. If he does not, his influence will continue to diminish
and human logic will be established as supreme. Man will do what he feels is right in his own eyes and the salvation message will become an adsurdity....

 

[jwu]

The theory of evolution is being used in public education by secular humanists (people who are man centered in their thinking) to explain away GOD without HIS mention.

The theory of evolution makes no statement at all about God, it is completely neutral about this. Moreover, the majority of Christians worldwide are evolutionists.

The simple fact is that scientific observations have NOTHING to show or demonstrate.

What would you like them to show or demonstrate?

Evolution is a mode of faith that rests in the opinion that different animal organisms have been eating each other from their point of origin.

Nope.

The is the antithesis of the Biblical creation story which clearly teaches that animals and man ate plants, fruits and vegetables prior to man's FALL which placed all creation under Satan's maniputaltion and establishing a dog eat dog environment to the extent GOD allowed it to proceed.

How about flesh eating plants? Didn't God create these as well? How about the venom of snakes? Claws? There are many structures which are clearly specialized for killing or as a defence from predators. Did God create these as well?

Evolution may scientifically be applied to the developement of the vast array of variety within kinds, but the misapplication arises where evolution is taught as the way the different kinds came to be.

How about evidence for common descent, such as ERVs? Explain them.

The Christian must see this as Anti-biblical, anti-Christian, and untimately Anti-Christ.. If he does not, his influence will continue to diminish

So your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one and you consider yourself infallible about it?

 

[LittleNipper]

So your interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one and you consider yourself infallible about it?

I consider the Bible infallible and man's understanding and research as imperfect. Christians cannot be neutral. They are either Christians or they are not. They owe their allegiance to the LORD JESUS CHRIST first and foremost. The vast majority of "Christians" do not study their Bibles with any regularity. The vast majority know even less about contrived science and its flaws of human understanding.

The only way science can again become a fair means of studying the origins of man is when those who are determined to promote a natural progression are willing to admit openly that they have stretched the truth and that so called clear geologic scales really are a figment of an artist's imagination and not founded in PURE science as is being biasly promoted. They also cannot contrive to exclude insights that reflect a religious tone simply because they feel religion is of no value.... I do not contrive to exclude secular insights because of their lack of biblical support. I do weigh them both and ponder them both. Those that do not are being manipulated. This is what science is all about. It is not the property of secularism.

 

[blunthitta4life]

I consider the Bible infallible and man's understanding and research as imperfect.

So your understanding of the bible is imperfect?

The only way science can again become a fair means of studying the origins of man is when those who are determined to promote a natural progression are willing to admit openly that they have stretched the truth and that so called clear geologic scales really are a figment of an artist's imagination and not founded in PURE science as is being biasly promoted. They also cannot contrive to exclude insights that reflect a religious tone simply because they feel religion is of no value.... I do not contrive to exclude secular insights because of their lack of biblical support. I do weigh them both and ponder them both. Those that do not are being manipulated. This is what science is all about. It is not the property of secularism.

Well since science is so biased against you and your sense of Christian morality, don't take advantage of what science has to offer. Since science is neutral towards God and since Christians cannot be neutral don't take medications, don't get your children vaccinated, don't use a computer, don't drive your car...the list can go on forever. However, you will continue to take advantage of what science offers... you can't survive w/o it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well since science is so biased against you and your sense of Christian morality, don't take advantage of what science has to offer. Since science is neutral towards God and since Christians cannot be neutral don't take medications, don't get your children vaccinated, don't use a computer, don't drive your car...the list can go on forever. However, you will continue to take advantage of what science offers... you can't survive w/o it.

My understanding of the Bible isn't perfect; however, it is being instructed by the HOLY SPIRIT which resides within me.

Science isn't biased. Secular humanistic macro evolutionary thought is biased. The things science has to offer, that I would use, are actually the end result of PRACTICAL science. That has nothing to do with Darwin's imaginings or the opinions that man evolved from out of single celled animals. The computer owes it's development to the invention of the light bulb; however, the manufacture of the light bulb of today owes its speed and complexities to the development of the computer. HOWEVER, the computer is not a distant relative of the bulb. They both exist as independent creations of man's ingenuity

 

[jwu]

My understanding of the Bible isn't perfect; however, it is being instructed by the HOLY SPIRIT which resides within me.

Yet other people who interprete it differently claim the same. Who is right?

Secular humanistic macro evolutionary thought is biased.

You're begging the question by adding those attributes.
Macroevolution is a conclusion based on the evidence. What explaination do you have to offer for ERVs? I think i've asked this repeatedly now, you keep ignoring the question.

 

[LittleNipper]

You're begging the question by adding those attributes.
Macroevolution is a conclusion based on the evidence. What explaination do you have to offer for ERVs? I think i've asked this repeatedly now, you keep ignoring the question.

Macroevolution is a CONCLUSION based on an INTERPRETATION of SOME evidence. I do not feel enough is really known concerning ERV's to come to an HONEST conclusion.

Genesis 1:16-19
And GOD made two great lights; the greater light for the rule of the day the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also. And GOD set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and GOD saw that it was good, and the evening and the morning were the FOURTH day.

I do not interpret this. GOD and not I were there. I accept it as GOD's REVELATION. This REVELATION goes against everything man has concluded through his own logic. Man's logic is not science. Man's logic is founded in man's PHILOSOPHY. Can you deny this?

 

[jwu]

Macroevolution is a CONCLUSION based on an INTERPRETATION of SOME evidence.

If it is a conclusion based on an interpretation of some evidence, then what is the other evidence which it does not consider? And how can it be interpreted differently? Please be specific.

I do not feel enough is really known concerning ERV's to come to an HONEST conclusion.

What knowledge are we lacking about them? Do they - with all available knowledge about them - not look like common descent hat taken place?

If new and groundbreaking information is revealed, then this might change of course, albeit i cannot really imagine what that would be and i'm not holding my breath.

I do not interpret this. GOD and not I were there. I accept it as GOD's REVELATION.

It is your personal interpretation to take this literally.

This REVELATION goes against everything man has concluded through his own logic.

So the moon produces own light? Or do you accept that it just reflects light from the sun?

Man's logic is not science. Man's logic is founded in man's PHILOSOPHY. Can you deny this?

Logic is math. Math is not founded on philosophy.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:
Entropy is a viable measure of surprisingness, and exactly is what information is about

According to who?

Information Is Not Entropy,
Information Is Not Uncertainty!
Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute
Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program
Molecular Information Theory Group
Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
toms@ncifcrf.gov
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

jwu:
With conservation of information you cannot develop these either though. Any new development is a violation of the conservation, as the original data must get changed. That's my whole point.

charlie:
Right, which indicates ToE is impossible.

jwu:
No, you don't get it. The reason why these cannot develop with conservation of information is that in that case no mutations can happen at all, because any mutation would be a violation of that by definition. If no conservation of information happens (as it is the case in reality), then mutations can happen and form new things. From a conservational point of view that would be a loss of information though, not an increase.

Right. And, as Barb noted many times, Shannon’s theory is the one that works in reality. As I noted in several posts before, the First and Second Laws apply to both thermodynamics, and information. That’s is why Shannon is so famous. He tied information to the Second Law. Everything in the universe is subject to the Second Law, even information. And, as Hawking has noted, everything is subject to the First and Second Law, even information. Translated: Information can neither be created nor destroyed- only degraded...just like matter.

A random mutation could never produce the specs necessary to produce, repetitively, the precision optical lense, and, at the same time, provide the appropriate instructions for hard-wiring the lense into into the nervous system and circulatory system, etc...again, repetitively.

Actually a gradual development of the eye is well understood. And ti doesn't have to produce e.g. a precision lense in one step either, just one that is better than no lense at all. A blob of slime already can do that.

O.K., so you have a blob of slime lying on the light-sensitive cells. Explain to me, in a realistic fashion, how random mutations, and no new info, could account for the blob hardwiring into the brain, central nervous system, circulatory system, and genetic system, with the systems in which it’s hardwiring into, also, contemporaneously, receiving the code, so as to decode the incoming signals. Certainly you know this is nonsense?

Actually we can make DNA...

Really? Functioning DNA, capable of replicating life? Or are you talking about taking the DNA out of one living organism and inserting into another organism? That’s a huge difference.

charlie:
It’s applicable to the question at hand, and shows that ToE is impossible. Shannon’s theory, which is the theory used for communication of information, proves ToE is impossible.

jwu:
Nope...Shannon's theory just states that mutations do happen, it makes no statement about what effects these have on the organism.

Shannon’s theory is based on observable, repeatable results in the area of communication of information. It is the theory used in practical situations concerning communication of information, because it works. Communication of information is the relevant issue when it comes to replication and reproduction of living organisms and their many sub-systems. It’s also the the core of ToE.
Shannon’s theory does tell you that mutations, which are the cornerstone of ToE,decrease information in the organism. So, it follows, ToE asserts it takes less and less information, to create and replicate (very accurately), “new†structures, like the brain, CNS, cardio-vascular system, arms, legs, etc...Again, to me, this is nonsense.

charlie:
Just because the applicable theory doesn’t give you the answer you want, doesn’t justify that the theory is inapplicable.

jwu:
There is one huge problem with your line of reasoning. You conflate several understandings of information. Shannon's works, which basically just state that "no message can be more original than the original", then binding specifity as a measure of information , and finally a "gut feeling" that new structures require new information, which you so far completely failed to show on a genetic level (using the definition which would require them to be more original than the original)

I've asked you several times to name a mutation which is proposed by the theory of evolution which requires an increase of information. You replied with things like "there is no such thing". So there is no mutation proposed by the theory of evolution which requires an increase of information? I want just one specific example about what "my" theory supposedly claims.

O.K., so you have a blob of slime lying on light-sensitive cells. Explain to me, in a realistic fashion, how random mutations, and no new info, could account for the blob hardwiring into the brain, central nervous system, circulatory system, and genetic system, with the systems in which it’s hardwiring into, also, contemporaneously, receiving the code, so as to decode the incoming signals. And then explain to me how all this is replicated and reproduced, with a decrease in information. Certainly you know this is nonsense?

which you so far completely failed to show on a genetic level (using the definition which would require them to be more original than the original)

What is your motive for insisting a subsequent message has to be more original than it’s source?. Everyone knows, from practical observation, that no message is ever as original, as “the originalâ€Â. Anything derived from an original message, is never more original than the source.

As I noted in several posts before, the First and Second Laws apply to both thermodynamics, and information. That’s is why Shannon is so famous. He tied information to the Second Law. Everything in the universe is subject to the Second Law, even information. And, as Hawking has noted, everything is subject to the First and Second Law, even information. Translated: Information can neither be created nor destroyed- only degraded...just like matter.

I believe Shannon’s Theory crushes your overall origin’s model..ToE is impossible. As you stated, ToE supposedly requires no new information, to replicate millions, and billions of times, with amazing accuracy, very complex structures, such as the brain, nervous system, reproductive system, digestive system, endocrine system, mucular- skelatal system, cardio-vascular system, endocrine system, ...infinitum, from a simple, self-replicating, sub-cellular piece of matter. To me, this is nonsense.

jwu:
No, it requires no message to be more original than the original. That's all what conservation of information is about. If an organism suddenly developed a new organ, then this would be a change of the original message, and since the original message is defined to have the highest possible content of information it would be a loss thereof. You have admitted that yourself in the E=MC² example in an email, but now you conflate that with a gut feeling, "to me, this is nonsense", that there should be an increase. But that has no connection to the information theory at hand. Using other definitions of information that may be so, that it requires an increase of information, but not when using a definition where the unchanged message is defined to have the highest possible content of information.

You cannot even give me a number of the total information content of a single organism!

First of all, you give an example based on fantasy: “...If an organism suddenly developed a new organ...â€Â. This is not based on what we observe, repetitively. It’s just a “gut†feeling on your part. The reason I think ToE is nonsense, is it requires no new information (actually, it requires a decrease in information) to supposedly create new structures, and then replicate and reproduce them, very accurately. How does the replication and reproduction accurracy occur, without information? Definitions of information, that equate entropy and randomness with information, are nonsense. Their not based on reality, and what we observe, time after time, after time.... And, by the way, no one can give you the total amount of information in any living organism. If so, we could create one.

You have admitted that yourself in the E=MC² example in an email...

Is this to what your referring:

As I noted in several posts before, the First and Second Laws apply to both thermodynamics, and information. That’s is why Shannon is so famous. He tied information to the Second Law. Everything in the universe is subject to the Second Law, even information. And, as Hawking has noted, everything is subject to the First and Second Law, even information. Translated: Information can neither be created nor destroyed- only degraded...just like matter.

charlie:
There is no intelligence in the machine, just like their is no intelligence in a high caliber naval fighter aircraft. It’s the “product†of intelligence...like a nano machine. It operates on information, based on design.

jwu:
...and besides, this is argueing agains abiogenesis, not evolution.

O.K., lets take it up a notch. Say you already have the jet, but then you install a weapons guidance system. Is this is a loss of information (the creation and operation of the subsystem)?

jwu:
The workings in a cell are not comparable to the workings in human technology. Digital logic typically breaks down instantly if something is changed. In a cell there are tolerances, it's fuzzy logic.

A single cell contains infinitely more information than any human technology, hence, the advanced, “fuzzy†logic. Think about how close we are to creating a single cell. We can remove and insert major parts of the cell, but that pales infinitely from actually generating new, organic structures from elements, sub-atomic particles, etc...all with no new info? Obviously, the cell contains infinitely more information than the most focused efforts of human intelligence. But then you believe that an organism, with infinitely more information, happened randomly, through mutations, which enabled evolution into higher classes, orders, families, and species, with a decrease of information...?
jwu,certainly, you know this is nonsense? It doesn’t happen in reality, so why should it in the mind of ToE philosphers? Again, what’s the motive, or basis in observation?

Is the following a correct summary of your line of reasoning?
"Structures require information. Information can only degrade, therefore no new structures can form. Mutations which would result in the formation of new structures therefore don't happen."

_________________

Meaningful, functional, useful, fully integrated structures require information...blobs of slime (new structures), or cancer mutations (new structures), require less, degraded, or no information. Your still trying to equate entropy, randomness and uncertainty with information. This makes no common sense. It has no basis in observation or reality.

Catch you guys next weekend.

Peace 8-)

 

[jwu]

According to who?

Ask a cryptologist of your choice. Entropy is used as a measure of the evenness of distribution of characters, and the more even this distribution is, the more surprising is each character once it's read.

Right. And, as Barb noted many times, Shannon’s theory is the one that works in reality. As I noted in several posts before, the First and Second Laws apply to both thermodynamics, and information. That’s is why Shannon is so famous. He tied information to the Second Law. Everything in the universe is subject to the Second Law, even information. And, as Hawking has noted, everything is subject to the First and Second Law, even information. Translated: Information can neither be created nor destroyed- only degraded...just like matter.

And you completely miss the point. All that this means in regards to biology is that DNA replication is imperfect. This has no relation whatsoever about what consequences that imperfect replication has.



Wait a second: "Translated: Information can neither be created nor destroyed- only degraded...just like matter. "

So what is happening when i record things about my environment? Am i not creating information then? Or am i just gathering it together and the information already was present in the environment?

O.K., so you have a blob of slime lying on the light-sensitive cells. Explain to me, in a realistic fashion, how random mutations, and no new info, could account for the blob hardwiring into the brain, central nervous system, circulatory system, and genetic system, with the systems in which it’s hardwiring into, also, contemporaneously, receiving the code, so as to decode the incoming signals. Certainly you know this is nonsense?

Nope, you just misapply Shannon information theory. It presupposes that this blob of slime is not supposed to have eyes and therefore considers any development into that direction as a loss of information by definition.
Once again, you mix the ridig definitions of Shannon's information theory with gut feelings.
It is not nonsense from a conservational point of view.

Really? Functioning DNA, capable of replicating life? Or are you talking about taking the DNA out of one living organism and inserting into another organism? That’s a huge difference.

Don't move the goalposts, you asked if we can make DNA. We can synthesize it. Additional criteria weren't asked for.

Shannon’s theory is based on observable, repeatable results in the area of communication of information. It is the theory used in practical situations concerning communication of information, because it works.

K/C information theory works too...it just leaves you no chance to misinterprete it in a way that suits your motives.

Shannon’s theory does tell you that mutations, which are the cornerstone of ToE,decrease information in the organism. So, it follows, ToE asserts it takes less and less information, to create and replicate (very accurately), “new†structures, like the brain, CNS, cardio-vascular system, arms, legs, etc...Again, to me, this is nonsense.

But information about what is it? It's just information about what the original DNA was. Only that is considered information there. If some part of it is changed to be something else, then that's a loss by definition, regardless what it is. Even if it's the coding of an eye or an additional organ.

Frankly, i don't care whether that's "nonsense to you". That's just your gut feeling.

First of all, you give an example based on fantasy: “...If an organism suddenly developed a new organ...â€Â. This is not based on what we observe, repetitively. It’s just a “gut†feeling on your part.

I do not in any way propose that this is how it happens. It's just a thought experiment which is supposed to show you the error in your interpretation.
Consider it a hypothetical scenario. You are capable of answering that question, aren't you?

The reason I think ToE is nonsense, is it requires no new information (actually, it requires a decrease in information) to supposedly create new structures, and then replicate and reproduce them, very accurately.

In that context a decrease of information just means that the original genome can change, because any change is a decrease of information by definitoon.

How does the replication and reproduction accurracy occur, without information?

You're conflating different understandings of information again. Shannon IT does not care what the information is good for. It's just about transmission integrity.

And, by the way, no one can give you the total amount of information in any living organism. If so, we could create one.

Sorry, but you're not making any sense there. How do we need to be able to create an organism in order to measure the information content of some already fully sequenced genome? That's a non-sequitur. You just have no idea how to measure the actual information content in a way that gives you a result that suits your motives.

How am i supposed to take you serious when you cannot even give me a number which tells me how much information is required for a specific new organ? In other words, you don't have a working definition of what information is. Else you could quantify it.

What is your motive for insisting a subsequent message has to be more original than it’s source?. Everyone knows, from practical observation, that no message is ever as original, as “the originalâ€Â. Anything derived from an original message, is never more original than the source.

And that's all that Shannon's IT is about. It says that copies are imperfect, and with theoriginal defined as having the maximal amount of information, any imperfect copy has less information by definition.

O.K., lets take it up a notch. Say you already have the jet, but then you install a weapons guidance system. Is this is a loss of information (the creation and operation of the subsystem)?

That depends on the definition of information. From the original manufacturer's point of view who wants to retain the overall integrity of his product some other mechanics tinkering with the systems of the jet would be a loss of information, because the final customer doesn't get what he intended to send to him. That is so rigidly based on Shannon's understanding of IT. Any change to the originally intended message is a loss of information, completely regardless of what that change is.

jwu,certainly, you know this is nonsense? It doesn’t happen in reality, so why should it in the mind of ToE philosphers? Again, what’s the motive, or basis in observation?

...then why do we use genetic algorithms to design things? Mutation and selection are powerful tools.
Besides, the emergence of new features is commonly observed. Not on such a large scale as organs in large organisms, but it is observed nonetheless. And if it happens on a small scale, why can't this accumulate over time?

This makes no common sense. It has no basis in observation or reality.

Then make your own information theory and establish it within the scientific community. The extant ones work that way, regardless of your gut feeling.

[quote:b63c5]You have admitted that yourself in the E=MC² example in an email...

Is this to what your referring: [/quote:b63c5]
No, it's the following:

[quote:b63c5]If you have a part of an email that you wanted to send out changed to "E=MC²", then you would consider that a loss of information simply because the receiver didn't receive what you wanted him to, would you not? He missed some information which you deemed important in order to receive this instead.

Right, uncertainty at the receiver remains the same, because no receipt of info occurs. [/quote:b63c5]
And it's exactly the same with the jet analogy. If the original sender of the information (the manufacturer) didn't want you to tinker with the electronics, then he will consider the addition of the weapons guidance system as a loss of information as afterwards the whole system isn't what he intended it to be anymore.

 

[LittleNipper]

Logic is math. Math is not founded on philosophy.

Math does not support Evolution....

 

[jwu]

Math does not support Evolution....

Evidence? How about genetic algorithms which are used to design things, sometimes even surpassing the best human made designs?

Something really cool:

A new paper in the October 1 issue of G&D elucidates the genetics of heart formation in the sea squirt, and lends surprising new insight into the genetic changes that may have driven the evolution of the multi-chambered vertebrate heart.

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094021.htm

A mutation was identified which changed single chambered hearts of sea squirts into two-chambered hearts.

 

[LittleNipper]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094021.htm

A mutation was identified which changed single chambered hearts of sea squirts into two-chambered hearts.

So how many eons do you estimate that it took for this one event to happen and is it proof positive, that the select sea squirts are no longer sea squirts?