[_ Old Earth _] Information: What Does It Mean to Evolution?

[Barbarian]

Fair enough, I guess. Except I don't even regard Science as science. Sure it has its place and all

The natural universe. Works like a bandit for that. But not so well on other things. That's why it's O.K. to be unscientific sometimes. I am frequently unscientific, myself, when it's called for.

and yes, there are many mysteries but of those who stand and say, "Urethra! I have found it!"

Comparative Anatomy 204. And it wasn't easy. Rats have a baculum and the whole thing is bent at right angles, internally.

Well, I'm skeptical. Skeptical of one and all save God. It's true for me too. I am skeptical of me. I'm no different. There are lots of things that can be said about debate, but heated and stubborn debate? Where is the merit? At least with men that do not have fixed positions, debate may serve to point out things that have not been considered in hope of correction.

Always.

I've been to many sites over the years and have discussed topics similar to those being discussed here. I like this one best (needless to say) but still, in all that time, I've never heard one person make a considered retreat from their dug-in position (and it goes beyond Science and Intelligent Design to spill all over) and then make a concise and conciliatory statement of gratitude to their opponent for their help in changing their mind.

Not often. But usually, these battles are best for the lurkers on the fence, who are watching the proceedings with some interest. They change a lot, as the argument progresses. The principals, not so much.

Maybe there is one? Did that one escape my attention?

It happens a little less than I convince someone that Jesus is Lord. Every other year, maybe.

Barbarian?

I used to be a strong [libertarian] but I have been listening and learning and I'm changed! Where I used to think [government was always the problem], I now see it better, closer to what I know is true, and you know what? I have someone on the net to thank for this. I still think government messes up most things, but I also see that some things are better done with government than by private means.

I used to be a strong [fideist] but I have been listening and learning and I'm changed! Where I used to think [that an open heart and faith were sufficient], I now see it better, closer to what I know is true, and you know what? I have someone on the net to thank for this. I still think faith in God is critical, but I also see that God can be approached by reason as well.

I used to be a strong [selectionist] but I have been listening and learning and I'm changed! Where I used to think [natural selection can account for all the variation we see], I now see it better, closer to what I know is true, and you know what? I have someone on the net to thank for this. Natural selection is demonstrably critical for evolution, but contingency plays a role, too. So even though the process is not random, it incorporates random things in the directed process.

 

[Sparkey]

[libertarian]

[fideist]

[selectionist]

Do you teach creative (fictional) writing too? Good job there.

I used to be a [weak minded person] but I have been listening and learning and I'm changed! Where I used to think [that wisdom could be found by listening intently to others, and giving prayerful consideration to what they say], I now see it better, closer to what I know is true, and you know what? I have someone on the net to thank for this. I still think listening is okay, but I also see that it's much more fun to insist that I'm right and stick to my initial thoughts no matter what anybody says.

Hey! Nice trick there. Now I know better what you mean about information evolving. Woo-Hoo!

 

[Barbarian]

I just notice that my opinions on a number of things have changed as the result of internet discussions on various websites. So yeah, it does happen. Mostly, though, the real effect is, as I said, on the guys watching the discussions. They tend to be still thinking it out, and depending on how the discussion plays, make some decisions.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you teach creative (fictional) writing too? Good job there.

I do some writing, but always for the people I love. I write two love poems a year for my wife. If she blushes or tears up, I know I've done well. If she frames it...

And for my youngest daughter, who was a little scaredy as a very small child, I wrote a series of stories about a little girl and a dragon she befriended to become brave . She kept them all. The day she graduated from high school, I gave her the last dragon story. It was the acknowledgement of her adulthood and we both got a little teary; many nights, she had fallen asleep as I told her the stories.

Isn't it obvious that I love to write?

 

[Sparkey]

I rose this morning and one of the familiar themes of thought that travel though my mind greeted me. It started so long ago when an idle curiosity brought me to ask, "I wonder what they were thinking?" The question rose as I pondered the skills of bakers and all the marvelous, varied products that are found and enjoyed, produced by the skillful workings of bakers. Yeah, I was thinking about rolls and foods and other things this morning, as my tummy grumbled to greet me, but the question centered itself on eggs.

What was that guy thinking? He had made a rudimentary 'bread' before. Flour and water. Maybe some salt for taste. It's a recipe for the shell of pot-stickers, but somebody had to connect chicken eggs to the whole process before cakes could be made. There were other things, baking soda or baking powder or yeast, for that matter. But the thought centered and focused itself on the specific of eggs as well as the very broad subject of yeast and/or other ingredients.

Do you see how this may line up to the letters and words example? Or the better example of the Library and all the ways it is organized to relate to our modern understanding of "information" too? What was that guy thinking? I know, let's get a chicken egg (Ewwww!, said his wife) and let's crack that thing in here, just to see what happens. His children cried at the thought. "I don't wanna!" they complained. "They are yecky." Before I go too far and make this whole thing about eggs, consider yeast or mushrooms or the various fine techniques of French cuisine. What were they thinking?

How does that information, the skills and abilities to craft a fine breakfast (including rolls) come into being? Is it a process of trial and error? Was it something that had some intelligence behind it? That's my conclusion but before we go all the distance and arrive at a natural conclusion, natural, that is to those who have been taught that their natures have changed --before we go there, let's just stop a proper moment and consider, "What's up with the egg?"

Sometimes, while I'm trying to draw out a point, I wander off on a tangent, something touching the subject but no longer the subject. It's like me raising my hand and saying, "Change of Subject." I like to tie string. That came from a time that I spent in jail and where I was taught a skill. The guys would get "string" by unraveling threads from their underwear and socks. They would twist these thread together and then, with the string, tie cross necklaces. I was taught this skill and have made many crosses over my lifetime. It's a reminder to me that the Lord was with me during times of struggle. And I bring up this idea of twining threads into strings and using strings to form necklaces upon which may be attached a string cross to illustrate how things can go from very simple (the thread) to very complex.

Now we are entertaining two thoughts. Eggs and String-Crosses. Let me add one more ingredient to the souffle breakfast that I was greeted with as I arose this morning. A Scripture. After that, the thought will be nicely cooked, like the egg, tied back into the Thread Title here, like the string - and presented for the Lord's blessing and your consideration as we dine (share and communicate) together before Him. Here's the Scripture:

Give ear and hear my voice, Listen and hear my words.

Does the farmer plow continually to plant seed? Does he continually turn and harrow the ground? Does he not level its surface And sow dill and scatter cummin And plant wheat in rows, Barley in its place and rye within its area?

For his God instructs and teaches him properly.​

For dill is not threshed with a threshing sledge, Nor is the cartwheel driven over cummin; But dill is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a club. Grain for bread is crushed, Indeed, he does not continue to thresh it forever. Because the wheel of his cart and his horses eventually damage it, He does not thresh it longer.​

This also comes from the LORD of hosts, Who has made His counsel wonderful and His wisdom great.

Barbarian, is it inconceivable that that our God also instructs nature in this manner? When I consider the way that I learned to tie string, cooperation between men was included for the initial instruction. The real skill came as I lay on my bunk and tied the crosses. It was then that my mind turned to the Lord and my fingers tied the thousand knots.

In that same way, could not nature become focused on God and hear secret things? I know that this is a personification, attributing things to "nature" in my attempt to understand --but the way that God does things aside, it seems reasonable that God works in all things for the good of them who love him.

I should let this go right here and right now and not stretch what is presented for our morning meal, shared together and simply ask the Lord's blessing upon "what we are about to share"... but another thought comes up too.

I'll hold that one, until you've been given a chance to chew this one. Would you care for some orange juice?

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

What was that guy thinking? He had made a rudimentary 'bread' before. Flour and water. Maybe some salt for taste. It's a recipe for the shell of pot-stickers, but somebody had to connect chicken eggs to the whole process before cakes could be made. There were other things, baking soda or baking powder or yeast, for that matter. But the thought centered and focused itself on the specific of eggs as well as the very broad subject of yeast and/or other ingredients.

Well eggs were probably a treat long before H. sapiens. Apes eat them, so I'm thinking our ancestors did as well.

Savanna apes surely eat grains, so that it wasn't much of a stretch to see that diet fit together very early. After fire, it was surely noticed that heat solidifies egg.

Baking, I don't know, but since almost everything else has been put in bread from a very early age, I don't see the issue.

Do you see how this may line up to the letters and words example? Or the better example of the Library and all the ways it is organized to relate to our modern understanding of "information" too? What was that guy thinking? I know, let's get a chicken egg (Ewwww!, said his wife) and let's crack that thing in here, just to see what happens. His children cried at the thought. "I don't wanna!" they complained. "They are yecky." Before I go too far and make this whole thing about eggs, consider yeast or mushrooms or the various fine techniques of French cuisine. What were they thinking?

"I'm hungry." If hungry enough, it all works.

How does that information, the skills and abilities to craft a fine breakfast (including rolls) come into being?

Mutation and natural selection. Change something, see how it works. Keep the good stuff, don't repeat the bad stuff.

In that same way, could not nature become focused on God and hear secret things?

In the sense that a hammer becomes focused on the carpenter and hears secret things.

I'll think about the rest.

 

[Sparkey]

Thread closed for Moderator Review.

 

[reba]

I will be doing some clean up in this thread.... I cant read science but i can read rude, demeaning, in my language 'snarks'. If your post no longer read in a scientific way you should have been more thoughtful in framing them. Reba


More tomorrow... If I was your moderator i would leave the thread closed and send it to the grave yard. Educated men should not resort to such.

 

[Sparkey]

Here is a unsolicited PM addressed to yours truly and found in my mailbox from a member of the Christianity and Science Forum. It too contains information.

Hi, Sparrowhawke
...
I have tried removing the word "you" from my posts as much as possible. I think it changes the tone and eliminates most what could be interpreted as harsh. To be honest, I imagine I am addressing my mother when I write my posts. At least most of the time. I have to say I really struggled with my last reply to [Member_Name removed]. I hope I wasn't too harsh. Even though I disagree with him he is still my brother.
Blessings!

I call attention to this anonymous member (God knows who he or she is) because of the style that they advocate. I've also witnessed the words offered here actually put into practice and have noticed and heartily commend the change that has been implemented to one and all.

 

[reba]

This thread is now open.

Edits have been made and posts moved....

Really guys you can post here i am heading out of the science area...

 

[Barbarian]

I guess the next step is to find some of Dempski's "CSI", and find out what it does for biology. The real problem for Dembski is that his theory assumes that something must be random, or it must be designed. Hence, if larger rock particles being carried down a steep mountain stream tend to fall out of the stream when it reaches more level ground, the resulting alluvial fan must be "designed" since it cannot be attributed to random deposition.

In fact, Dempski has been unable to use his idea to identify "designed" things unless he was able to make the decision about the issue before applying "specified complexity."

This is why scientists almost universally use Shannon's theory for understanding information in systems. It actually works, and Dempski's does not.

 

[turnorburn]

Your not alone reba take it from II Timothy

II Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

That's why i try to avoid this area, an example of whats called the THE SOCRATIC METHOD..

[for more information see: 'What is the Socratic Method' excerpted from Socrates Café by Christopher Phillips
-Moderator]

[edited]

Those who become smitten with the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry thrive on the question. They never run out of questions, or out of new ways to question. Some of Socrates Café’s most avid philosophizers are, for me, the question personified.

The fulfillment that comes from Socratizing comes only at a price - it could well make us unhappier, more uncertain, more troubled, as well as more fulfilled. It can leave us with a sense that we don’t know the answers after all, that we are much further from knowing the answers than we’d ever realized before engaging in Socratic discourse. And this is fulfilling - and exhilarating and humbling and perplexing. We may leave a Socrates Café - in all likelihood we will leave a Socrates Café - with a heady sense that there are many more ways and truths and lights by which to examine any given concept than we had ever before imagined.

from Socrates Café, page 18 - 24.

http://www.philosopher.org/Socratic_Method.html

tob

 

[Barbarian]

A Christian should never fear the truth. God is truth.

 

[turnorburn]

That's exactly right Barbarian a Christian has nothing to fear from the living God that's why included his message..

II Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Which is why God certainly approves of us doing science; we learn more about His creation.

The fulfillment that comes from Socratizing comes only at a price - it could well make us unhappier, more uncertain, more troubled, as well as more fulfilled.

I repeat. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. Know the truth and the truth will set you free.

 

[Vaccine]

Shannon's theory is really only about data transfer. The integrity of the packets of information being transferred were all that mattered. With the discovery of biological information in the genome the content of that package now becomes relevant.

If information were just a generic package, then a duplicated gene is an increase of information and I could understand that this is where the theistic evolutionsts hopes lie, that "with God all things are possible" and He could alter this duplicate gene into a new function.
That's certainly one possibility. Some reasons I don't believe this is because as a rule most species exhibit no directional change, spiders, starfish and just about every other spices still alive from the cambrean explosion haven't changed in (supposedly) 500 million years. Another reason I don't believe that is the built-in error protection of the genome. Part of the reason most organisms exhibit no change is due to this built in error protection.

They way information works in the genome of an organism is similar to computer programming. In binary code 0's and 1's are used as symbols. The sequence of 0's and 1's is translated into a useful operation. In the genetic code there are 4 symbols, A, T, C, G, and their sequence is translated into a useful operation. In a computer those symbols represents open or closed circuit, in an organism those symbols represent chemicals, where chemical reactions are either blocked or allowed.

Just as binary has syntax, so does the genetic code. There are start bits to mark the beginning of a message, and end bits to mark the end of a message. Any change to the start/stop bits results in self sterilization. Any misspelled codons result in self sterilization. In the genetic code all genes have a start codon and an end codon, the gene data is in between them.
Examples of syntax:

You can see the cat and dog run all day

If there were misspelled words, or missing characters the result would be self sterilization.

These would be rejected:

Yuo can see teh cat and odg run lal day
y o can se the c t and do run al day
can you dog cat the you all and day run

We can make sense of those examples, RNA cannot. This would be a mutation:

You saw her act cry and eat for the day
You let him win the cup for one big day

Examples of code.
This is binary code for the word insulin:
01101001 01101110 01110011 01110101 01101100 01101001 01101110

This is genetic code for actual insulin:
CCA TAG CAC GTT ACA ACG TGA AGG TAA

Biological information is not just some generic package of information. There is a built in global checksum. Any random changes result in genetic instability, which ends in self sterilization. They recently discovered 80% of those changes are intentional.
It takes a lot of faith randomly changing some 0's and 1's on a hard drive could result in millions of improvements over millions of years. Personally, I believe God made millions of species in the first place.

 

[Barbarian]

Shannon's theory is really only about data transfer.

No. It's also about the total information in a system. Hence, Shannon information is applicable to population genetics, where it is commonly used, while ID can do nothing of use at all.

Would you like to see how it works?

The integrity of the packets of information being transferred were all that mattered. With the discovery of biological information in the genome the content of that package now becomes relevant.

No, that's wrong. What matters is the information, not any "meaning" that one might want to put onto it.

If information were just a generic package, then a duplicated gene is an increase of information

Might be. A duplicated gene that was then mutated would be an increase in information in any event.

and I could understand that this is where the theistic evolutionsts hopes lie,

Reality is a pretty good foundation, yes.

that "with God all things are possible" and He could alter this duplicate gene into a new function.

It turns out, He's smarter than IDers would like Him to be. There are many such examples. Want to learn about some of them?

That's certainly one possibility. Some reasons I don't believe this is because as a rule most species exhibit no directional change, spiders, starfish and just about every other spices still alive from the cambrean explosion haven't changed in (supposedly) 500 million years.

That's a testable assertion. Show me a species of spider that was present in the Cambrian. Or any other species that has existed for 500 million years.

Another reason I don't believe that is the built-in error protection of the genome.

It has built-in error production rates. Not surprisingly, that rate is about optimal for the type of organism. Natural selection, you know.

Part of the reason most organisms exhibit no change is due to this built in error protection.

No, that's demonstrably wrong. Populations that are well-fitted to their environments, still have many mutations. But since they are well-fitted, few mutations are improvements. Darwin discussed this. It's called "stabilizing selection."

They way information works in the genome of an organism is similar to computer programming.

No. That's a myth. Except for unusual languages like LISP, built-in error generation isn't part of any computer language.

Just as binary has syntax, so does the genetic code. There are start bits to mark the beginning of a message, and end bits to mark the end of a message. Any change to the start/stop bits results in self sterilization.

That's wrong, too. We have many examples of chromosome fusion/fission, in which the existing stop codes were replaced.

Any misspelled codons result in self sterilization.

No, that's wrong, too. You and I have perhaps dozens of mutations that were not present in either parent.

Biological information is not just some generic package of information. There is a built in global checksum. Any random changes result in genetic instability, which ends in self sterilization. They recently discovered 80% of those changes are intentional.

Show us that. Not someone's opinion, show us the data that they are intentional.

It takes a lot of faith randomly changing some 0's and 1's on a hard drive could result in millions of improvements over millions of years.

Comes down to evidence. Biology has it. Creationism doesn't. Would you like to learn about some of that evidence?

Personally, I believe God made millions of species in the first place.

He did and continues to do so. But not the way creationists would like Him to do it.

 

[Vaccine]

I've posted that quote before by Gould, about how over (supposedly) millions of years most don't change. Spiders and starfish are among those, if I have time later I'll find a fossil to back up Gould's claim.

The universal genetic code isn't similar to or like a programming language, it is exactly a programming language. DNA (Code + sytax) gives instructions to RNA (machine).

Definition of programming language:
"programming language is an artificial language designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer. Programming languages can be used to create programs that control the behavior of a machine and/or to express algorithms precisely."

I also showed how Microsoft is developing a programming language for people to write programs designed to run within a cell.
“We present a programming language for designing and simulating DNA circuits”.
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/8...terface09b.pdf


ENCODE showed 80% were reliably transcribed, meaning not by accident. The jumping genes are guided by a tiny protein string to another place on the genome.

 

[Barbarian]

I've posted that quote before by Gould, about how over (supposedly) millions of years most don't change.

He said stasis can last for millions of years. Show me where he said a species remains unchanged for 500 million years.

Spiders and starfish are among those, if I have time later I'll find a fossil to back up Gould's claim.

I'm still skeptical that he said that any species remained unchanged since the Cambrian. Show us that.

The universal genetic code isn't similar to or like a programming language, it is exactly a programming language.

No. Programming languages do not spontaneously mutate. That's entirely wrong.

Definition of programming language:
"programming language is an artificial language designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer. Programming languages can be used to create programs that control the behavior of a machine and/or to express algorithms precisely."

Sure we can simulate evolutionary processes by programming with computer languages. But the languages themselves don't mutate; they just simulate what goes on in nature. They are called "genetic algorithms" and they don't mutate.

ENCODE showed 80% were reliably transcribed, meaning not by accident.

That's not what the ENCODE researchers said. That was the ICR's own revision of what the research showed.

We've already refuted that one. Even if the ICR thinks ENCODE was wrong, they still are dishonest when they change the story and pretend ENCODE said it.

 

[Barbarian]

Measurement of biological information with applications from genes to landscapes.
Molecular Ecology (2006)
Volume: 15, Issue: 10, Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell, Pages: 2857-2869
ABSTRACT:
Biological diversity is quantified for reasons ranging from primer design, to bioprospecting, and community ecology. As a common index for all levels, we suggest Shannon's (S)H, already used in information theory and biodiversity of ecological communities. Since Lewontin's first use of this index to describe human genetic variation, it has been used for variation of viruses, splice-junctions, and informativeness of pedigrees. However, until now there has been no theory to predict expected values of this index under given genetic and demographic conditions. We present a new null theory for (S)H at the genetic level, and show that this index has advantages including (i) independence of measures at each hierarchical level of organization; (ii) robust estimation of genetic exchange over a wide range of conditions; (iii) ability to incorporate information on population size; and (iv) explicit relationship to standard statistical tests. Utilization of this index in conjunction with other existing indices offers powerful insights into genetic processes. Our genetic theory is also extendible to the ecological community level, and thus can aid the comparison and integration of diversity at the genetic and community levels, including the need for measures of community diversity that incorporate the genetic differentiation between species.