Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

GOD IS NOW HERE
GOD IS NO WHERE

Same letters, same spaces, same length, vastly different information.

Excellent example. DIFFERENT information. But, the real question is whether the AMOUNT of information is the same.

redneck:

Must be a fine institution, keep up the good work.

Thanks!

 

[rossum]

Which one has more information?

http://www.symbols.com/pics/small/28/2801.gif

or

http://www.symbols.com/pics/small/28/2802.gif

According to my computer, the upper image (2801.gif) is 20 x 19 pixels while the lower image (2802.gif) is 19 x 19 pixels. Accordingly the upper image comtains more information.

rossum

 

[redneck22]

According to my computer, the upper image (2801.gif) is 20 x 19 pixels while the lower image (2802.gif) is 19 x 19 pixels. Accordingly the upper image comtains more information.

rossum

I came up with the conclusion, but mine was based on the arrow pointing upwards, meaning “more”.

 

[rossum]

By analogy, it seems to me that we can all agree that the Enclylopedia Britannica has X amount of information.

Agreed.

If you randomly go in and change 1 character to some other character, I find it hard to believe that the new version would be considered an increase of information.

That is not a correct analogy. I duplicated the gene before altering one copy while the other copy remained unchanged. A correct analogy would be to make a new copy of the encyclopedia and then make a change in one of the two copies. All of the information in the original is still present plus the information in the changed version.

It is easy to imagine that in some very restricted cases it is neutral (e.g. an extra space between words), or that it is harmful (e.g. “The value of pi is 2.14159…”). Could you give an example of increasing information using this encyclopedia example which more of us might understand?

You are confusing “information” with meaning. If I picked up a copy of the encyclopedia translated into chinese it would have no meaning at all to me because I cannot read chinese. The mathematical information content would be similar, but the meaning would be greatly changed. Meaning is not measurable because it depends on the observer; information is measurable and does not depend on the observer.

rossum

 

[rossum]

GOD IS NOW HERE
GOD IS NO WHERE

Same letters, same spaces, same length, vastly different information.

Same information, different meaning. To someone who could only read Arabic or Devanagari both of your strings would be equally meaningless. The meaning of those characters depends on what you, as an observer know. The information content is different from the meaning.

You could calculate the information content of this string: प्रज्ञापारमिताहृदयसूत्र but it probably has no meaning to you. I can read devanagari (slowly) and I know some sanskrit so I can derive much more meaning from it that you probably can. Despite the differences in meaning we get from that string we would both calculate the same information content.

Information is independent of meaning.

rossum

 

[JDaniel]

Dang, what a bunch of rude apples! You know, I AM in the room with you all, and I can “hear” everything that you say. Why not just call me a moron to my face?

Pssst! How big are you?

 

[ricmat]

Agreed.

That is not a correct analogy. I duplicated the gene before altering one copy while the other copy remained unchanged. A correct analogy would be to make a new copy of the encyclopedia and then make a change in one of the two copies. All of the information in the original is still present plus the information in the changed version.

You are confusing “information” with meaning. If I picked up a copy of the encyclopedia translated into chinese it would have no meaning at all to me because I cannot read chinese. The mathematical information content would be similar, but the meaning would be greatly changed. Meaning is not measurable because it depends on the observer; information is measurable and does not depend on the observer.

rossum

OK - so let’s talk about meaning.

So even with replication of the encyclopedia after random changes, it seems that the meaning of the encyclopedia decreases with each iteration. By definition, in this example, all the information in the encyclopedia was meaningful (i.e. correct) to start with. Do you envision any circumstance under which random changes cause the meaning of any of the replicated/mutated encyclopedias to increase (new knowledge) as time goes on?

Certainly there would be decreasing “meaning” where most changes occurred.

 

[rossum]

Yes, but you still have yet to define “information.” You can’t measure what you don’t know what you’re measuring.

I have a very practical definition of information. Shannon information is that which is mesured by Shannon’s calculation; for details see Shannon’s paper. Similarly for Kolmogorov information and similarly for Fisher information. These are all mathematically defined quantities which have been found to be useful by scientists.

Information does not arise spontaneously, but is a product of an abstract mind.

I will need to see scientific proof of that please. Information can be created by evolutionary processes, as I have shown. Where the new information matches the environment then natural selection will spread it through the population. Where the information does not match then natural selection will eliminate it from the population. The whole process copies information from the environment into the genomes of the population.

No, I didn’t say that DNA makes the organism intelligent. I’m saying that an intelligence created DNA coding.

Is chemistry intelligent?

I certainly understand what you are saying, but you are wrong to attempt to exclude all philosophical thought from scientific endeavors. Nobody comes to the science table devoid of a philosphical bias.

However, philosophical information cannot be quantified easily, so it is of less interest in this discussion.

Even so, from a biological perspective, you MUST understand that information is separate from the MEDIUM, just as you stated, it can be represented in DNA, RNA, or as a chain of amino acids. Each is a different MEDIUM, yet each represents information.

It is apparent that you are confusing information with meaning. See my reply to redneck22 above. Information is separate from meaning as with a text written in a script you cannot read. It contains information but it has no meaning to you because you cannot read the script. Even if you can read the script, you might not understand the language: “Priodasau, uniadau, a phartneriaethau yn ôl gwlad.” Information is separate from meaning. I do not read Welsh, but I can calculate the information content of that string. A Welsh speaker would get a lot more meaning from the string, but would still calculate the same information content.

I certainly can appreciate your clinging to the only thing that you’ve ever known.

I am perfectly prepared to change my toolset if you can provide a better toolset. Unless and until you have shown me that better toolset I will continue to use the currently available toolset. At least I can calculate some useful numbers with my toolset. You have not been able to show me any useful numbers with your toolset at all.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

According to my computer, the upper image (2801.gif) is 20 x 19 pixels while the lower image (2802.gif) is 19 x 19 pixels. Accordingly the upper image comtains more information.

rossum

They were supposed to be the same. But it could be display anomalies which cause the difference in pixels.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Information does not arise spontaneously, but is a product of an abstract mind.

The information in a hurricane is the product of an abstract mind? Can you enlarge on that idea for us?

 

[redneck22]

Same information, different meaning. To someone who could only read Arabic or Devanagari both of your strings would be equally meaningless. The meaning of those characters depends on what you, as an observer know. The information content is different from the meaning.

I would say the information is independant of the medium. The medium being the letters, so that if the letters are transcribed into Arabic or Devanagari then the meaning should be the same, based on the information content.

You could calculate the information content of this string: प्रज्ञापारमिताहृदयसूत्र but it probably has no meaning to you. I can read devanagari (slowly) and I know some sanskrit so I can derive much more meaning from it that you probably can. Despite the differences in meaning we get from that string we would both calculate the same information content.

It could mean “Intelligence…Heart/mind…prayer ritual (or Formula)”, the reason I cannot read it is due to the medium not the information, therefore my calculation would only relate to the medium and not the information or the meaning thereof.

Information is independent of meaning.

Information is useless without meaning

 

[redneck22]

The information in a hurricane is the product of an abstract mind? Can you enlarge on that idea for us?

If you could assembly a fully functional jumbo jet from a hurricane passing through an airplane junkyard, then I would say there is either an abstract mind at work or evolution is true.

 

[rossum]

OK - so let’s talk about meaning.

Fine, meaning it is.

So even with replication of the encyclopedia after random changes, it seems that the meaning of the encyclopedia decreases with each iteration.

Not always. There is a small set of changes that increases meaning. Using your example of pi, a change from “pi = 3.14159” to “pi = 3.141592” is an increase in meaning since 3.141592 is a better approximation of pi that 3.14159.

By definition, in this example, all the information in the encyclopedia was meaningful (i.e. correct) to start with.

Barring errors in the encyclopedia. This is analogous to evolution where every reproducing organism is well adapted anough to be able to reproduce but not neccessarily perfectly adapted. Every encyclopedia is close enough to correct to sell, but not neccessarily perfectly correct, as with the value of pi. Random changes are most likely to make the encyclopedia less informative, but a small subset of changes will make it more accurate. Just as deleterious mutations are more common than beneficial mutations, but the rate of beneficial mutations is not zero.

Further, to introduce the analogy of natural selection, copies of the encyclopedia with the more accurate value of pi will get better reviews than the old versions and so will tend to sell more and have more copies published. Eventually over time the new, more accurate, version will replace the old less accurate version.

Do you envision any circumstance under which random changes cause the meaning of any of the replicated/mutated encyclopedias to increase (new knowledge) as time goes on?

Yes, as above with the value of pi. Beneficial mutations are rarer than deleterious mutations, but they do happen. When they do happen they are amplified and spread by natural selection - good reviews. Bad reviews of an encyclopedia with “pi = 2.14159” will reduce its sales and result in less copies being printed.

In evolution the majority of mutations are neutral - which is a more difficult to express in the encyclopedia analogy that deleterious or beneficial. Perhaps a change from ‘.’ to ‘,’ as the decimal separator: 3.14159 => 3,14159 would be an example of a neutral mutation or a minor change in the hyphenation of a word at the end of a line. UK spelling against American spelling might also be an example: color => colour.

Certainly there would be decreasing “meaning” where most changes occurred.

Agreed. The important word in what you say is “most”; to have said “all” would have been incorrect. In a population of six billion humans, each with about 100 to 150 mutations, there is room for some beneficial mutations.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

According to my computer, the upper image (2801.gif) is 20 x 19 pixels while the lower image (2802.gif) is 19 x 19 pixels. Accordingly the upper image comtains more information.

rossum

You are going to absurdities in your “measurements”. That’s like me taking two apples and putting one on a table in an upright position, and another apple on a desk on its side, and then measuring the two surfaces **INSTEAD OF THE APPLE!! **

In both cases, the amount of information in the apple is identical, but you’d come up with different measurements of information because YOU MEASURE THE WRONG THINGS.

 

[oriel16]

Information is useless without meaning

Information is useless without context and that is where Darwin’s injection of a ‘cause’ is anti-scientific by morphing an essay on national supremacy to ‘natural selection’.

The empirical approach or rather,distortion, appears to give the investigator a choice to investgate evolution without having to be checked by people who follow Genesis and therefore God but this view is contrary to the evolutionary framework which existed through the efforts of Christians.The view of Rev William Buckland would be about right for evolutionary biologists/geologists before Darwin -

“I would . . . be unwilling to press the theory of relation to the human race, so far as to contend that all the great geological phenomena we have been considering were conducted solely and exclusively with a view to the benefit of man. We may rather count the advantages he derives from them as incidental and residuary consequences; which, although they may not have formed the exclusive object of creation, were all foreseen and comprehended in the plans of the Great Architect of that Globe, which, in his appointed time, was destined to become the scene of human habitation.”

strangescience.net/buckland.htm

People here are using information like bits and pieces without context and create a conceptual frankenstein monster out of nature.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The information in a hurricane is the product of an abstract mind? Can you enlarge on that idea for us?

If you could assembly a fully functional jumbo jet from a hurricane passing through an airplane junkyard, then I would say there is either an abstract mind at work or evolution is true.

How silly. If that happened, it would be directly contrary to evolutionary theory, which says that fitness arises from non-random causes. Most people who think they hate science, have no idea what it is.

 

[buffalo]

Fine, meaning it is.

Not always. There is a small set of changes that increases meaning. Using your example of pi, a change from “pi = 3.14159” to “pi = 3.141592” is an increase in meaning since 3.141592 is a better approximation of pi that 3.14159.

Barring errors in the encyclopedia. This is analogous to evolution where every reproducing organism is well adapted anough to be able to reproduce but not neccessarily perfectly adapted. Every encyclopedia is close enough to correct to sell, but not neccessarily perfectly correct, as with the value of pi. Random changes are most likely to make the encyclopedia less informative, but a small subset of changes will make it more accurate. Just as deleterious mutations are more common than beneficial mutations, but the rate of beneficial mutations is not zero.

Further, to introduce the analogy of natural selection, copies of the encyclopedia with the more accurate value of pi will get better reviews than the old versions and so will tend to sell more and have more copies published. Eventually over time the new, more accurate, version will replace the old less accurate version.

Yes, as above with the value of pi. Beneficial mutations are rarer than deleterious mutations, but they do happen. When they do happen they are amplified and spread by natural selection - good reviews. Bad reviews of an encyclopedia with “pi = 2.14159” will reduce its sales and result in less copies being printed.

In evolution the majority of mutations are neutral - which is a more difficult to express in the encyclopedia analogy that deleterious or beneficial. Perhaps a change from ‘.’ to ‘,’ as the decimal separator: 3.14159 => 3,14159 would be an example of a neutral mutation or a minor change in the hyphenation of a word at the end of a line. UK spelling against American spelling might also be an example: color => colour.

Agreed. The important word in what you say is “most”; to have said “all” would have been incorrect. In a population of six billion humans, each with about 100 to 150 mutations, there is room for some beneficial mutations.

rossum

Let us subject the encyclopedia to just one random mutation during each copy process. At what point would the encyclopedia be rendered useless?

 

[Ender]

You are confusing “information” with meaning… Meaning is not measurable because it depends on the observer; information is measurable and does not depend on the observer.

The amount of information depends on how it is measured. Shannon information has increased …
In terms of Kolmogorov information the content is the same …

It does appear that the disagreement lies in the definition of information with yours being a strictly mathematical construct measuring the physical content of a message. I assume this would explain why the Shannon value differs from the Kolmogorov value. Again, I have no comment on whether this is the correct definition, only that it seems you have shifted the real battle from one term to another, from information (which you say is measurable) to meaning (which you say is not).

Without stepping too deeply into this, information is useless unless it has meaning and we know that DNA sequences have meaning since the information is not random and specific reactions occur as a result of its coding. Is the difference then between you and PEPCIS over the meaning contained within DNA rather than its information content?

Did you mean to imply that meaning depends solely on the observer?

Ender

 

[rossum]

Let us subject the encyclopedia to just one random mutation during each copy process.

There is not just one encyclopedia, there are many encyclopedias - a population of encyclopedias - each with a different set of mutations. There is no rule saying that each newly copied encyclopedia can have only one mutation, the average human has about 100 to 150 mutations, around 5 of which are not neutral.

At what point would the encyclopedia be rendered useless?

At the point at which it ceased to be saleable so nobody would think it worth making copies of it. This is equivalent to an organism being unable to reproduce.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

There is not just one encyclopedia, there are many encyclopedias - a population of encyclopedias - each with a different set of mutations. There is no rule saying that each newly copied encyclopedia can have only one mutation, the average human has about 100 to 150 mutations, around 5 of which are not neutral.

At the point at which it ceased to be saleable so nobody would think it worth making copies of it. This is equivalent to an organism being unable to reproduce.

rossum

What you have though is many different (adapted) encyclopedias all with slightly different characteristics. All of them are less “perfect” then when they started. They all started with the same initial language and meaning. They are as we say, corrupted.

Extinction has far exceeded survival.