tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6464026459114963830..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: If This Were ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73352698109654937172010-05-25T06:41:19.510-07:002010-05-25T06:41:19.510-07:00Steve: ""Claims ID hasn't been able ...<i>Steve: ""Claims ID hasn't been able to pin down a definition of information so that means that Neo-Darwinism doesn't need to pin it down either.<br /><br />So you see, all Thumpin' has to do is claim that gene duplication increases information in the genome without having to back it up with a definition of information of his own. But he KNOWS that information does in fact increase in the genome and that's a fact. See how nice that was? Smooth and seamless."</i><br /><br />Actually Steve, like most of the scientific community I am quite happy to use Francis Crick's definition of information in biological organisms as the determination of genome sequence:<br /><br /><b>Crick: " “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein” </b><br /><br />...which means it's trivially easy to show natural evolutionary processes increasing information content.<br /><br />You guys are the ones claiming that natural processes can't increase information. But every time we ask for your definition or how you quantify your measurements, you run for the door.<br /><br />Funny how that works.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45576540754875445352010-05-25T06:01:24.499-07:002010-05-25T06:01:24.499-07:00"Claims ID hasn't been able to pin down a..."<i>Claims ID hasn't been able to pin down a definition of information so that means that Neo-Darwinism doesn't need to pin it down either. <br /><br />So you see, all Thumpin' has to do is claim that gene duplication increases information in the genome without having to back it up with a definition of information of his own. But he KNOWS that information does in fact increase in the genome and that's a fact. See how nice that was? Smooth and seamless.<br /><br />Talk about hat tricks.</i>"<br /><br />Or, more bluntly: 'modern evolutionary theorists' constantly employ fallacious reasoning because they tend to be intellectually dishonest (i.e. hypocrites with respect to reason).Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7733495737622399732010-05-25T03:58:50.135-07:002010-05-25T03:58:50.135-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41153688820091234562010-05-25T03:49:21.693-07:002010-05-25T03:49:21.693-07:00Er, actually no. If the 'scientific community...Er, actually no. If the 'scientific community' were so busy laughing, they wouldn't be spending half the time they do 'trying' to refute 'the Dembskis, Behes, and Myers of this world'.<br /><br />Moreover, it is getting harder and harder to rebut ID with every passing day. <br /><br />To boot, the bio-complexity website is going a long way into putting paid to the notion that ID is not science, and IDists do no science, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Thorton, we like you just the way you are. Oh, and don't let up on that spit-balling either. We need a spitball champ in the ranks.<br /><br />Thumpin' Thorton. Yeah, I like that.<br /><br /><br /><br />Thorton: "Bottom line is - you regurgitate without understanding the same meaningless buzzwords as the Dembskis and Behes of the world, and the scientific community just laughs at your antics.""Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44190499675983581202010-05-24T07:13:48.433-07:002010-05-24T07:13:48.433-07:00Michael, try to focus!
The topic is new informati...Michael, try to focus!<br /><br />The topic is new information <b>in the genome</b><br /><br />The claim by IDers is that natural evolutionary processes can't produce new information <b>in the genome.</b><br /><br />My questions was "how would you recognize 'new information' if you saw it?" <b>in the genome</b><br /><br />Since you've admitted that the original IDer claim was wrong, and that natural evolutionary processes <b>can</b> produce new information in the genome, the rest of your babble is pointless.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71300610955981911842010-05-24T06:54:37.241-07:002010-05-24T06:54:37.241-07:00Thorton asked:
"how would you recognize '...Thorton asked:<br /><br />"how would you recognize 'new information' if you saw it?"<br /><br />It is sad to see this question still alive in your mind. I am going to use simple language to help you.<br /><br />In practice Shannon's laws are nothing more than pattern descriptions helping us to accurately send messages, compress them etc. Apart from that, it shows any pattern change in a message... Since you are the expert I am going to leave you with a question to ponder. If you have a method to flawlessly track pattern changes, how close to identifying new information are you? The cherry on top of this is; What if you know the the complete syntactical and semantic range of that code?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16854721430965844092010-05-24T06:46:35.972-07:002010-05-24T06:46:35.972-07:00Thorton said:
"By this definition then natur...Thorton said:<br /><br />"By this definition then natural processes (like gene duplication with point mutations) can and do increase the information content of the genome."<br /><br />I do understand that duplication of genetic information makes you happy. To me it is far more interesting that Shannon's signal noise reduction principles are flawlessly executed to ensuring close to zero noise during gene duplication. But signal noise (mutation) is the friend of Darwinists not so?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54099851300226743422010-05-24T06:40:02.407-07:002010-05-24T06:40:02.407-07:00Thorton,
Have you read Hubert Yockey's work? ...Thorton,<br /><br />Have you read Hubert Yockey's work? Can you talk intelligently about it? Can you highlight the central thesis of his work?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35014638446440000692010-05-24T06:26:53.341-07:002010-05-24T06:26:53.341-07:00Michael: "Genetic information is at least Sha...<i>Michael: "Genetic information is at least Shannon information for the purposes of information theory and our ability to quantitatively measuring genetic information."</i><br /><br />By this definition then <b>natural processes (like gene duplication with point mutations) can and do increase the information content of the genome.</b><br /><br />That's all you had to admit. Save the rest of your word salad and bluster for your next IDer group grope.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63130208370208833622010-05-24T06:12:55.621-07:002010-05-24T06:12:55.621-07:00LOL! Actually Michael, I know quite a bit about i...LOL! Actually Michael, I know quite a bit about information theory, and Shannon information, and Chaitin-Kolmogorov information. I know Crick's definition of information in the human genome. I also know a blustering blowhard like you can't provide a simple, clear definition of information <b>as it applies to biological organisms</b>, or tell how to measure it.<br /><br />The IDers love to make up their own vague, undefined terms like 'specified information', then proclaim loudly that natural evolutionary processes can't create new information. All I've done is ask how you determined that. If you can't measure the information content of an object, then you can't claim its information content didn't increase. Please tell me - <b>how would you recognize 'new information' if you saw it?</b><br /><br />Any individual human carries only a small subset of the total number of different genes present in the overall population. You can't even tell me if you are referring to the information content of a single individual, or of the entire species' gene pool.<br /><br />Bottom line is - you regurgitate without understanding the same meaningless buzzwords as the Dembskis and Behes of the world, and the scientific community just laughs at your antics.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39635187623305928492010-05-24T05:59:12.965-07:002010-05-24T05:59:12.965-07:00second opinion,
You are naive to conclude from wh...second opinion,<br /><br />You are naive to conclude from what I wrote that genetic information is "nothing more than Shannon information". I went out of my way to explain the reason for the inclusive nature of Shannon information. Assigning a code system to anything is not a natural process at all. What you actually refer to is nothing more than the fact that Shannon's laws can be applied to information captured on almost any physical media.<br /><br />Genetic information is at least Shannon information for the purposes of information theory and our ability to quantitatively measuring genetic information.<br /><br />If a specified string of code is measured according to Shannon's laws it is possible to assess the effect of signal noise etc. It is envisaged that one day the same accuracy of signal calculations will apply to genetic information as we complete the deciphering of the genetic code.<br /><br />It is impossible to assess and "reduce" the signal noise of the forced information calculation of the sand on the beach.<br /><br />Again your statement implies Shannon information across the board to be completely useless. The fact is that Shannon's laws managed to reduce signal noise in communication systems, using binary code, to an near optimum.<br /><br />This just proofs how incoherent claims of naturally occurring code is.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68686008356972724472010-05-24T04:51:48.510-07:002010-05-24T04:51:48.510-07:00If genetic information is nothing more than Shanno...If genetic information is nothing more than Shannon information then since Shannon information can be created by a purely random process you are basically saying that the theory of evolution can explain the origin of that information.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37579469845690685732010-05-24T02:54:10.220-07:002010-05-24T02:54:10.220-07:00Typing error above:
reasons - should be - region...Typing error above:<br /><br />reasons - should be - regionsMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10050853219725964212010-05-24T02:50:59.664-07:002010-05-24T02:50:59.664-07:00second opinion,
Can you please give me a quote fr...second opinion,<br /><br />Can you please give me a quote from Stephen Meyer's book where he states that genetic information is not Shannon information?<br /><br />Your "sand on the beach" example show your ignorance of information theory. You can calculate the information contained in any media (including the sand on the beach) if and only if you assign a code system to it. This is because Shannon information is independent of semantic meaning as I already highlighted above. It is possible to assign a binary code to virtually anything and therefore you can calculate information content for almost anything. What you forget is that assigning a code system to anything is not warranted to produce any meaning or usefulness. Shannon information is not an exclusion factor, but rather proof that his method is completely physically measurable regardless of the code carrying medium.<br /><br />That however does not count as a disqualification for genetic information being Shannon information. As Yockey points out the code system of the DNA are well defined to be SEGREGATED, LINEAR, AND DIGITAL and very specific, we are in the process of assigning (deciphering) the meaningful reasons, all of which are done according the the principles of Shannon information.<br /><br />In any event with your objection there is nothing to be gained by Shannon information in any field of information technologies. Why would you select to use it for IT and communication technologies but not for genetic information, surely your objection should be applicable on these obviously Shannon information.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89410891231244948452010-05-24T02:07:46.894-07:002010-05-24T02:07:46.894-07:00@Michael: The problem is that you can't use Sh...@Michael: The problem is that you can't use Shannon's definition of information for your argument. Since according to that definition the sand on a beach carries information and that came about by a purely random process. That's why Stephen Meyer in his book “Signature in the Cell” uses “specified information” which is not Shannon inforamtion.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70824461630192759882010-05-23T23:22:40.538-07:002010-05-23T23:22:40.538-07:00Steve,
It is clear that Thorton has also pushed h...Steve,<br /><br />It is clear that Thorton has also pushed his head into the sand regarding the information content of genetics, indicated by his obvious ignorance of the subject. Why he would venture to insist on an answer in this regards can only be smoke an mirrors, trying to divert attention from the implications from the current state of information theory advances.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4406002494747966942010-05-23T23:00:43.764-07:002010-05-23T23:00:43.764-07:00Truth is it is Elsberry, Musgrave, Shallit, Carrol...Truth is it is Elsberry, Musgrave, Shallit, Carroll, Coyne, Myers, et al that are scared sh@#$less of ID for precisely the reason that Dembski and Marks are actively working to define information scientifically.<br /><br />To be sure, it is ID that acknowledges the intuition (arising from observation) that information exists apart from physics and chemistry. It is ID that is actively seeking to pin down a scientific definition of information based on that intuition.<br /><br />Proponents of Neo-darwinism can only stick their fingers in their eyes and ears and babble about information 'just' being a by-product of the interaction of matter and energy and no further inquiry required. <br /><br />So Thorton, I think ID is fine with your challenge and fine as well with your taunting. <br /><br />What is significant is that Elsberry, Shallit, Carrol, Musgrave, et al are on the defensive and NOT pursuing a scientific definition of information of their own.<br /><br />"ID waxing, ND whin..,er waning"Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15246115342112568778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9909214527690181442010-05-23T22:56:46.532-07:002010-05-23T22:56:46.532-07:00Thorton,
You have not answered my question. Have...Thorton,<br /><br />You have not answered my question. Have you read Hubert Yockey's work? Now I have to ask, Do you know what Information Theory is? Have you heard about Claude Shannon? Do you know how to measure any form on information? <br /><br />At this stage you have disqualified yourself from this discussion because of your lack of insight into the question you ask.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45627863235020637352010-05-23T16:46:11.108-07:002010-05-23T16:46:11.108-07:00Michael: " blither blither blither
excuse ...<i>Michael: " blither blither blither <br />excuse excuse excuse <br />blither blither blither" </i><br /><br />Exactly as I thought, you <b>can't</b> provide a scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms. You also <b>can't</b> give a method to quantify this information either. That means your idiotic claim that 'natural processes can't increase information in an organism' is worthless.<br /><br />Looks like you're just another empty drum, making lots of noise but completely void of any scientific substance. A poster boy for the ID movement other words.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72533328575334811602010-05-23T14:39:41.772-07:002010-05-23T14:39:41.772-07:00Thus far, there is one and only one theory that sp...Thus far, there is one and only one theory that specifically predicts the rates of both the X and Y chromosome divergence — the theory of Everything Was Caused By Magic to Be the Way We See It.<br /><br />So far, this hypothesis has yet to be falsified — and yet opponents are free to do so, simply by demonstrating one — just <i>one</i>! — infoplexical phenomenon that can be explained without magic.<br /><br />Don't ask me to define infoplexical; that would just go to show you don't really have a counterargument.Lenoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809085020841868387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75805154882075224962010-05-23T13:22:15.792-07:002010-05-23T13:22:15.792-07:00Adolfo: “By their criticisms, I find it ironic tha...<b>Adolfo:</b> “<i>By their criticisms, I find it ironic that some evolutionists take the time or even bother to post in a blog like this one. Consider this statement from their hero Dawkins: ‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.’ If this is so why even bother to criticize the statements of others. If they are so convinced that evolution is true and that there is ‘nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ why not let it be.<br /><br />The answer lies in the fact that their belief in evolution is wishful thinking. …</i>”<br /><br />Exactly, Adolfo. Further, their behavior (including Dawkins’) demonstrates that they don’t really believe what they so vociferously assert.<br /><br />Also, in the case of Dawkins, <i>his own words</i> prove that he does not believe what he intends to browbeat others into asserting to be true (<a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2010/04/basils-car-and-justice.html" rel="nofollow">as see here</a>)Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89956125659748058172010-05-23T12:23:54.670-07:002010-05-23T12:23:54.670-07:00Thorton,
Your problem with the quantification of ...Thorton,<br /><br />Your problem with the quantification of information makes it very clear that you are probably ignorant of Yockey's work and information theory in general. But before I come to any rush conclusion... Let me ask you right out: Have you read any of Yockey's work on biological information?<br /><br />Genetic information has the following necessary characteristics best highlighted by the following quote:<br />"The structure of DNA found by Watson (1928– ) and Crick (1916–2004) could have been just that of another large molecule, such as hemoglobin, if it had not been that DNA carries the genetic message that is transferred to the proteome by the genetic code. THEIR WORK COMPLETED THE MODERN VIEW THAT THE MESSAGE IN THE GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM IS SEGREGATED, LINEAR, AND DIGITAL." www.cambridg e.org /9780521802932 <br /><br />The rest of Yockey's work that I referenced above expound on the SEGREGATED, LINEAR, AND DIGITAL characteristics of genetic information. Read it to gain insight into its workings.<br /><br />Unfortunately for you any segregated, linear and digital code is quantifiable by using the calculations pioneered by Claude Shannon. The amount of information stored on any medium like the DNA is unfortunately independent of the meaning or usefulness of that information and I suspect that might be the reason for you to doubt the possibility of measuring the "usefulness" of a particular amount of information.<br /><br />The thing is that it is no real problem when you can apply information theory to genetic information because with information theoretic methods you can isolate information bearing media, quantify it based on the code used (syntax quantified) and by inferring meaning you could also quantify the meaningful regions (semantics quantified).<br /><br />Then there is the best part of information theory. The degradation or increase of information becomes partly semantically, but completely syntactically measurable.<br /><br />This means you cannot go on bashing the DNA without measurably loosing information whether it is syntactically useful or not. In the end you might lose all useful information as well.<br /><br />This is as much as I am going to indulge you arrogant insistence that ID proponents has no scientifically based measure for genetic information.<br /><br />If you are the least of a scientist you would find a way to use this obviously new insight to open fruitful dialogue with people supporting a different theory of the origin of life.<br /><br />P.S. You have to enjoy Yockey's definition of life. I think it is the best there is:<br /><br />"An additional criterion for this book is:<br /><br />The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physicochemicalworld that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences." www.cambridg e.org /9780521802932Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70439345297561251552010-05-23T09:57:22.157-07:002010-05-23T09:57:22.157-07:00Michael, please provide this scientifically rigoro...Michael, please provide this scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms if you can.<br /><br />Don't forget to give a method to <b>quantify</b> this information too. I'm sure you'll agree that if you can't measure the amount of information, you can't tell if the amount has increased or decreased over time.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35188361227599588982010-05-23T09:38:05.335-07:002010-05-23T09:38:05.335-07:00Just a quote to wet your apatite, for Yockey:
&qu...Just a quote to wet your apatite, for Yockey:<br /><br />"The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws (Yockey, 1992)."<br /><br />(Yockey, Hubert P. (1992). Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.)<br /><br />P.S. I would consider Yockey as a very good evolutionist that made it possible to have a constructive argument for and against design / evolution. Unlike the rantings I have encountered from you.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16998978139071037132010-05-23T09:27:27.795-07:002010-05-23T09:27:27.795-07:00Thorton,
I would like to take your challenge &quo...Thorton,<br /><br />I would like to take your challenge "scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms.", but before I give you the definition, I would like to know if Hubert Yockey's definition would be acceptable to you, or have you found a reason to disregard that as well?<br /><br />It will safe me a lot of time and get you to rant along on your own dung heap, even before I say something that you will not like in any event.<br /><br />My source would be "Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life" Hubert Yockey CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.com