Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

In the Beginning was Information.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by rossum View Post
    God is omniscient we are told. Hence God knows the exact DNA sequence of every living organism on earth.

    If God contains zero complex information, then all the DNA in every living organism on earth also contains zero complex information. Changing the storage format does not change the quantity of information present.

    Something with zero complex information does not require design according to ID theory.

    You need to rethink this argument.
    Well, someone has to rethink their argument, that's for sure.

    You're adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 37.

    The sequential information in DNA is in the same category as the sequential information of computer code or any other digital information. It's having the DNA bases or ones and zeros of computer information arranged in the right sequences to perform a function.

    Knowledge (whether God's or mine as a software engineer) that exist in the mind is totally different.

    There is nothing in the theory of ID that is concerned with the origin of the designer, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn it in.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      The same thing.
      Then you know that, like Shannon, it doesn't require the string to actually carry information (in the 2b sense).


      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      This is useless, since it does not provide a measure of the quantity of information. Without a measure we cannot say how much information is present, and we cannot determine if the amount has increased, decreased or remained unchanged after some process.
      Not useless at all. The measurement is terms of the type and number of functions, not simply the number of "bits".

      The concept is easy to understand. I can write a program that does something like produce a report or process a file of data.

      Suppose I write the program twice, each version producing the exact same functionality, but one version I write as efficiently as possible and the other way as inefficiently as possible.

      The inefficient version would be larger in terms of bytes ("bits"), but it is the smaller, more efficient version that would be better. It would run faster and take up less storage.

      You would be forced to choose the larger, more inefficient version because is has more Shannon "information".



      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      Does this string contain functional information?
      /lta ba rab tu bsgrub pa'i phyir/ /me yi dpes ni nus ma yin/ /song dang ma song bgom pa yis/ /de ni lta bcas lan btab bo/

      Your answer is subjective, depending on whether or not you know the language it is written in. A subjective measure is not objective, and so not very useful in science. That is why Shannon avoided thinking about meaning -- meaning is subjective, not objective. An encrypted transmission is deliberately designed to be meaningless to anyone without the correct key. Some transmissions are deliberately meaningless at all levels, merely serving to block an enemy's traffic analysis. Yet all those transmissions contain Shannon information.
      Let me answer by giving a scenario.

      Suppose you are visiting a foreign country where you don't speak the language. You see a woman sit down at a table on a sidewalk and soon another woman walks up to her. The first woman speaks the phrase from your example above. You don't understand a thing that the woman said. The second woman writes something down on a pad and walks into a nearby doorway and soon comes back with a tray of food and a drink. She sets the food down in front of the first woman who nods to the second woman and then begins to eat.

      Does the phrase in your example contain functional information?

      Of course it does.

      This is like what we observe happening in the cell with the processes of transcription and translation. Information stored in DNA is expressed into the functional proteins and RNA that are necessary for life to exist.


      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      Easily done. Random mutations generate new information. Natural selection selects the more functional variants and eliminates the less functional variants. Over time the less functional variants disappear and the more functional variants spread. The overall functionality of the population genome increases.
      What we see are small, "fine-tuning" changes or changes that switch existing genes on or off (Lenski's cit+ E. coli). I don't have a problem with that type of "evolution", primarily because I think that most of it is adaptive (programmed).

      But the ToE needs to account for the origin of new body plans, new organs, etc, not to mention the origin of life.


      Originally posted by rossum View Post
      You are telling us that a complex property like intelligence can appear in the absence of design. That refutes the ID claim that complex properties require design. It also refutes the ID claim that life requires design, since an eternal God is an example of undesigned life.

      The existence of God refutes ID's claims.
      Only if God were a material being and biologically alive. He is neither.
      Last edited by DaveB; 07-11-2019, 02:06 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Shannon's qualifications in electrical engineering and math do help him lacking the basics of science, and trying vainly to falsify Intelligent Design with a calculator.
        What does this mean?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          Easy.

          Every individual in every generation has new genetic variations which arise from events like sexual recombination and imperfect genome duplication. That is the source of the new raw information. The new information which gets incorporated into the species' gene pool is that which is fixed by natural selection and drift. The random variation / selection feedback loop is what causes the increase in both functionality and complexity, or "CSI" as the IDiots like to use.

          The random variation / selection feedback loop has been operating and producing new functional information since the first pre-biotic self replicators began competing for resources over 4 billion years ago in the Hadean epoch. The evidence we have suggests self replication or primative "life" seems to be an emergent property of the physical laws of chemistry and physics found in our universe.

          Now you know.
          1. What is the mechanism of this "feedback loop"? (You are using a metaphor)

          2. What pre-biotic self replicators? Self-replication is a highly regulated process requiring dozens of proteins.

          Please provide a source.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            Easy also.

            There is NO scientific theory of ID for biological life. There isn't even a testable hypothesis of ID. All ID has is religiously based idle speculation unsupported by even a single piece of positive scientific evidence. ID as pushed by the religious think-tank Discovery Institute is a purely political movement created to get the Christian God back into U.S. public schools.

            Now you know that too.
            If I had wanted an angry and cartoonish answer, I would have asked for one.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Really? My experience as a software engineer and a follower of the evolution/creation 'debate', which includes a fair bit of writing and running genetic algorithms and evolution simulators, tells me that Meyer is a charlatan who make fundamental errors.
              As a software engineer, you should realize that genetic algorithms, while great for harnessing the power of a computer to solve specific problems, are lousy as an example of evolution.

              A genetic algorithm combines artificial selection (selection based on a pre-specified goal) with artificial "breeding" (breeding only those that are artificially selected). Evolution has no such goal.

              Through-out this thread, the attacks on Meyer and Gitt are based on insult and accusation, but no specifics.

              Why is that?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                And if several ribonucleotide bases are joined together into a single polymeric ribonucleic acid molecule, which is what happens during transcription, that would also be a chemical reaction.
                No, it is not a chemical reaction. And I don't even know what you mean by bases joining together. The bases along a strand of DNA or RNA doesn't even come into contact with each other.

                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Only one question:

                Why should anyone care what you think?
                Why does anyone care what anyone else thinks? Especially on an internet forum?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
                  No, that's creationism.

                  You could Google it if you wanted to.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                    1. What is the mechanism of this "feedback loop"? (You are using a metaphor)
                    Differential reproductive success. Individuals with reproductive advantage tend to reproduce more and spread their genes through the population. More Evolution 101 for you to learn.

                    2. What pre-biotic self replicators?
                    These sort of pre-biotic self replicators

                    Amyloid and the origin of life: self-replicating catalytic amyloids as prebiotic informational and protometabolic entities
                    Maury
                    Cell Mol Life Sci. 2018; 75(9): 1499–1507.

                    Abstract: A crucial stage in the origin of life was the emergence of the first molecular entity that was able to replicate, transmit information, and evolve on the early Earth. The amyloid world hypothesis posits that in the pre-RNA era, information processing was based on catalytic amyloids. The self-assembly of short peptides into β-sheet amyloid conformers leads to extraordinary structural stability and novel multifunctionality that cannot be achieved by the corresponding nonaggregated peptides. The new functions include self-replication, catalytic activities, and information transfer. The environmentally sensitive template-assisted replication cycles generate a variety of amyloid polymorphs on which evolutive forces can act, and the fibrillar assemblies can serve as scaffolds for the amyloids themselves and for ribonucleotides proteins and lipids. The role of amyloid in the putative transition process from an amyloid world to an amyloid–RNA–protein world is not limited to scaffolding and protection: the interactions between amyloid, RNA, and protein are both complex and cooperative, and the amyloid assemblages can function as protometabolic entities catalyzing the formation of simple metabolite precursors. The emergence of a pristine amyloid-based in-put sensitive, chiroselective, and error correcting information-processing system, and the evolvement of mutualistic networks were, arguably, of essential importance in the dynamic processes that led to increased complexity, organization, compartmentalization, and, eventually, the origin of life

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                      If I had wanted an angry and cartoonish answer, I would have asked for one.
                      You were given the correct answer to your question. Don't ask such a stupid question next time.

                      Maybe take the time to educate yourself on the definition of scientific theory too. There is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                        No, that's creationism.
                        Intelligent Design is just rebranded Creationism. That was made clear over a decade ago when the IDiots face planted at Kitzmiller v. Dover.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                          No, it is not a chemical reaction. And I don't even know what you mean by bases joining together. The bases along a strand of DNA or RNA doesn't even come into contact with each other.
                          Hi, biologist here to tell you you have no idea of what you're talking about, and should probably learn some biology before claiming to be able to say anything about evolution.

                          DNA and RNA are a polymer with a backbone where sugars are linked through phosphodiester bonds. Creating these phosphodiester bonds involves a chemical reaction, typically catalyzed by an enzyme in cells. Pretty much all of biology can be distilled down to chemistry (reactions, charged/van der Waals interactions, etc.) if you look in enough detail.

                          Bases on a single strand of DNA and RNA also most certainly make contact with each other. They're hydrophobic, and typically stack on top of each other, as that's chemically favorable in an aqueous environment. In addition, the DNA/RNA strand can loop back and base pair with itself, forming what are called hairpin structures.

                          Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                          Why does anyone care what anyone else thinks?
                          I care what informed people think, as i can often learn from them. But you've just demonstrated that, when it comes to biology, the opposite of what you say is likely to be true.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                            As a software engineer, you should realize that genetic algorithms, while great for harnessing the power of a computer to solve specific problems, are lousy as an example of evolution.

                            A genetic algorithm combines artificial selection (selection based on a pre-specified goal) with artificial "breeding" (breeding only those that are artificially selected). Evolution has no such goal.
                            Wow, you really don't understand any of this do you?

                            Here is a great example of using evolutionary algorithms to evolve mobile soft robots.



                            The research field of evolutionary robotics abstracts some of the major themes in biological evolution (heritable traits, genetic variation, and competition for scarce resources) as tools to allow computers to generate new and interesting virtual creatures. One of the recent themes in this field is towards more embodied robots (those that produce interesting behavior through the design of their bodies, as well as their brains). Here, we build on previous work evolving soft robots to demonstrate the low level embodiment of electrical signals passing information through muscle tissue. Through this work we attempt bridge the divide between embodied cognition and abstracted artificial neural networks. We hope you find the video interesting and entertaining!

                            Through-out this thread, the attacks on Meyer and Gitt are based on insult and accusation, but no specifics.

                            Why is that?
                            Plenty of specifics were provided. You really want to try and defend Meyer's ignorance and stupidity in his Cambrian claims?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                              There is almost no evidence that Cambrian life evolved from Ediacaran organisms.
                              Thank you for confirming that evidence exists. I agree it is sparse, but there is enough to make more than zero evidence, your "almost no".

                              Having purines and pyrimidines (the two classes of bases used in RNA and DNA) by themselves is not the issue.
                              It is for creationists who have neither. Or do you have a paper describing divine creation of the relevant molecules?

                              The question isn't "what can intelligent scientists do in a lab?", it's "what can non-intelligent, natural processes do?".
                              Non-intelligent, natural processes can make purines and pyrimidines in conditions like those on a prebiotic earth.

                              This is not something that the theory of ID deals with.
                              Yes it is. Frank Lloyd Wright was an intelligent designer. ID has a great deal to say about the origin of that particular intelligent designer.

                              Or are you telling us that the intelligence in an intelligent designer is low complexity and so does not require design? Did Frank Lloyd Wright require design?

                              Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                              There is nothing in the theory of ID that is concerned with the origin of the designer, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn it in.
                              Confirming my point. An intelligent designer contains complex information and so requires deign. ID studiously avoids the point bacause it cannot just say "God is eternal" since that would destroy the political idea behind ID.

                              Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                              Suppose I write the program twice, each version producing the exact same functionality, but one version I write as efficiently as possible and the other way as inefficiently as possible.

                              The inefficient version would be larger in terms of bytes ("bits"), but it is the smaller, more efficient version that would be better. It would run faster and take up less storage.

                              You would be forced to choose the larger, more inefficient version because is has more Shannon "information".
                              So measure it as Kolmogorov information, which is defined as the smallest representation of the information. And yes, simple evolutinary processe can increase Kolmogorov information as well.

                              Only if God were a material being and biologically alive. He is neither.
                              Jesus was a material being and biologically alive. Jesus is God. Or are you a non-Trinitarian?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                                What does this mean?
                                I mistyped the previous pot.

                                Correctly said. He is the father of information theory and his work is often unethically used by others with a religious agenda to unethically use probability to justify their beliefs.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-11-2019, 05:17 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X