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

[Sideline]

DNA is a coding system. It has a message. It contains all the instructions necessary for life, a map if you will.

It’s so fun debating with you. You ignore anything that challenges your points.

If you came across a chemical or physical system that codes for data you say it must be created because it codes. When asked how you know that all codes are created, you point to the fact that there is no natural system that codes. When pointed to a natural system that codes you say it has to have been created.

Rinse and repeat.

Is it natural? Does it code? Then it’s not natural.

Do you really not see the problem with this argument?

 

[PEPCIS]

[SIGN]
"Barbarian:

All new mutations add information to the population.

PEPCIS:

You have not established that yet.

Barbarian:

Claude Shannon established that.

PEPCIS:

Absurdity. Shannon was an electronics engineer who earned the title “father of information theory” because of his ground-breaking work in information.

Yep. His stuff works. Yours doesn’t.

[/SIGN]

Notice how you evolutionists always manage to avoid the question by introducing other arguments into the mix. That’s referred to as a “red herring argument.”

The claim made by you was that “All mutations add information to the population [of a species.]” Further, you claimed that “Claude Shannon [had] established that.” That’s called “appealing to authority.”

Of course, by saying that “Claude Shannon [had] established that”, you just avoided the question of whether “all new mutations add information to the population” could be true. That is called the “red herring argument.”

Now, maybe you will show me the following:

1. 
   *]How do mutations add information to the population, and how you quantify that.
   *]The published material of Claude Shannon the Biologist that established that mutations add information to the population.
   

   But, one thing is abundantly clear: Shannon was NOT a biologist, and he never established anything in regards to biology.

   Barbarian:
   

   Not surprisingly, you’re completely wrong about that, too:
   Claude Shannon: Biologist
   The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
   THOMAS D. SCHNEIDER
   Since he used a property of biology to formulate his mathematics, I conclude that Claude Shannon was doing biology and was therefore, effectively, a biologist—although he was probably

   unaware of it.
   
   LOL
   
   Ok, now that I’ve stopped laughing, please show me ANY article where Claude Shannon published in a Biological, peer reviewed magazine, and he specifically dealt with a Biology subject.
   
   I’ll be waiting, but not holding my breath…

 

[Ender]

Read the same passage again. It just as clearly explains why there is stability in certain variations as it explains the success of changes in other.

No, it does not. There may be a very reasonable explanation for stasis but this is not it. There is always competition between individuals and the law is survival of the fittest, not survival of those who go elsewhere.

I certainly hate your tone here.

Understood … but don’t attribute the comments to me. You weren’t responding to anything I said.

I’m really intrigued about a species unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. Tell us about it.

If you’re so intrigued about it you should read some more. I assumed you were very familiar with evolution but perhaps not so much. I was quoting Ernst Mayr (“The Darwin of the 20th century.” NY Times): “Indeed, the so-called living fossils have hardly changed for hundreds of millions of years.” What was it you said to PEPSIS? - Not surprisingly, you’re completely wrong about that, too.

I’m gonna assume that the question was directed to me.

Actually, no. I read your statements as saying pretty much the same thing and was struck by Barbarian’s insistence that one way of phrasing it was ridiculous and the other was obvious.

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

"The Barbarian:

No, you simply asserted that. . .

PEPCIS:

Post #386

Sorry, that’s wrong. Let’s get started…

The genetic information in a population, for any specific gene:

H = - K Sigma i = 1 n (pi log(p)i). . .

You aren’t reading for comprehension. Allow me to repeat myself:

“Evolutionists often make the mistake of attempting to tackle the issue of information by attributing a strictly numerical count, believing in evolution so strongly that their belief includes the faith that evolution can create information by mutational processes.” (Post #386)

“. . .information is not simply the aggregation of data points, and that an insertion/mutation is nothing more than the RANDOM introduction of another data point. Data points do not increase information unless they actually carry information.” (Post #527)

It’s unfortunate that you are caught in this trap of BELIEF whereby you cannot understand a simple truth - information is that abstract quality which is not an inherent part or product of the Medium by which it is carried. Counting the data points of the Medium will only give us a figure which corresponds to the aggregation of the data points (the Medium), and does not reflect the measurement of the information being carried by that Medium.

Your simple formula will only quantify the Medium, and not the information that it carries.

 

[PEPCIS]

Birds used to have teeth. Is the loss of teeth a loss of information, or a gain of information?

PEPCIS:

According to evolution, most likely either a decrease in information, or simply an exchange of information.

Barbarian:

. . . birds lack teeth, because there’s a new allele that suppresses the formation of teeth. They still have the genes for teeth. Hence, this mutation added information.

Well, that’s a BELIEF that evolutionists have. As I noted, “According to evolution, most likely [this is] either a decrease in information, or simply an exchange of information.” Of course, this all depends on who is telling the story.

Therefore, order is not information (not equal to information), and neither is it sufficient to define information (contrary to what Barbarian was attempting to claim).

Barbarian:

You’ve gotten confused again. I told you that information was a measure of uncertainty. You may find that objectionable, but nevertheless, if you use that definition, it’s possible to greatly compress data and see that it gets transmitted with minimum error. In other words, it works.

No, I am not confused on this point. You have repeatedly made assertions that do not stand up to scrutiny. Ender was the one that brought that to light when he noted that you agreed with one of my statements, but a similarly worded statement you disagreed with.

You can sit there and spout out that “information is a measure of uncertainty” all day long, but you would continue to be wrong. The ONLY way that that statement could be rendered as “true” is in the specific context of the transmission of data, when the data points are analyzed for data loss. That is why it is stated that a loss of uncertainty is an increase in the verified transmission of data.

In Biology, you could use Shannon formulations to examine the transmission of DNA during synthesis and other functions of the cell which require the transmission of information. But you would still only be measuring the data points, and not information itself.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

I have shown both you and Barbarian how it is that information is not simply the aggregation of data points, and that an insertion/mutation is nothing more than the RANDOM introduction of another data point. Data points do not increase information unless they actually carry information

How are you measuring the quantity of information? What measure are you using and how do you calculate it? You cannot say “increase information” without some absolute or relative measure of the quantity of information.

Information is abstract. Allow me to attempt to illustrate.

Let’s say that the following is information:

… / .-… — …- . / – -.-- / .-- … …-. .

This is morse code for “I love my wife.”

If I measure the data points (including spaces and punctuation) of the morse code, I end up with 49 data points. If I measure the data points of the English translation, I end up with 15 data points.

Which translation has more information?

The obvious, and logical, answer is that neither does.

If I then increase the amount of information by stating:

“I love my wife, and my children, and my dog, and my cat”, I would significantly increase the amount of information, yet the data points alone are insufficient to quantify how much information I have increased.

Yet, one thing is indisputable: The information has increased.

How much has the information increased?

Tell me, how you would measure that information.

 

[grannymh]

Information is abstract. Allow me to attempt to illustrate.

Let’s say that the following is information:

… / .-… — …- . / – -.-- / .-- … …-. .

This is morse code for “I love my wife.”

If I measure the data points (including spaces and punctuation) of the morse code, I end up with 49 data points. If I measure the data points of the English translation, I end up with 15 data points.

Which translation has more information?

.

Do hope your wife received concrete information. :flowers:
It’s quality that is important!

 

[Sideline]

No, it does not. There may be a very reasonable explanation for stasis but this is not it. There is always competition between individuals and the law is survival of the fittest, not survival of those who go elsewhere.

Let’s say you have two birds. One is black, one is white. Which one is fittest? We can’t say, there’s not enough information.

Let’s say you have two birds living in a dense forest. Which one is fittest, the black one or the white one? Now we have an answer. The black one. Better camouflage in this case equals more fit, assuming of course that the birds are equal in all other respects.

Let’s say you have two birds living in the arctic, which one is more fit? Now it’s the white one. Better camouflage in this case equals more fit, assuming of course that the birds are equal in all other respects.

Let’s say that you have two white birds that mate and have 3 offspring living in the arctic. One is completely white like the parents, one has red flecks on his plumage. One has one wing that is shorter than the other. Which one is the fittest? The answer is the one that is most like the parents.

Let’s say that the best adapted bird, namely the one that has not changed, has three more offspring. One is snow blind, one is like his parents, and one is a particularly deep sleeper. Which one is the fittest? The one that is most like his parents.

This is an extreme example, but it shows that nature can select the same traits in successive generations just as easily as it can favour change.

One other point, you use the quote by Ernest Mayer to prove your point that there are living fossils that haven’t changed in millions of years. Well… you are both wrong:

www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/crocs/tguide/tgcrocs.html

The point above is a teacher’s guide for teaching about crocodiles. It addresses the “Are crocodiles living fossils?”

I am sure that I will be able to show you how any of the living fossils you care to mention are not in fact unchanged from their ancestors. They are remarkably similar, but as I’ve pointed out above, nature can select for stability just as easily as it can select for change.

 

[PEPCIS]

Do hope your wife received concrete information. :flowers:
It’s quality that is important!

Yes, thank you. We do the “Love Dare.” Dare you do the dare too?
:hug1:

 

[Leela]

Ok, let’s see if I can get this back on track. I’ll agree with you that random processes can create patterns that are periodic. If the pattern is aperiodic, then there is a high chance that intelligence is behind it.

You’ve opted to drop the definite/indefinite distinction in patterns in favor of periodic/aperiodic. I assume periodic means that a patterns repeats and aperiodic means that a pattern does not repeat?

 

[buffalo]

It’s so fun debating with you. You ignore anything that challenges your points.

If you came across a chemical or physical system that codes for data you say it must be created because it codes. When asked how you know that all codes are created, you point to the fact that there is no natural system that codes. When pointed to a natural system that codes you say it has to have been created.

Rinse and repeat.

Is it natural? Does it code? Then it’s not natural.

Do you really not see the problem with this argument?

Indeed it is fun.

DNA has an alphabet, it contains a message.

I am maintaining the language of DNA comes from a mind. Scientists are using linguistics to study it.

 

[Sideline]

Indeed it is fun.

DNA has an alphabet, it contains a message.

I am maintaining the language of DNA comes from a mind. Scientists are using linguistics to study it.

I noticed that you are maintaining that. Care to answer my question now? What is the intelligence that interprets this language?

If you study linguistics, you’ll note that in language there is someone sending the message, and someone receiving it. Language exist between individuals.

You have said it is a language. Who reads it?

There really is no point reiterating your position. I understand it. Now I want you to defend it. Perhaps you could start by answering that question.

 

[rossum]

Information is abstract. Allow me to attempt to illustrate.

Let’s say that the following is information:

… / .-… — …- . / – -.-- / .-- … …-. .

This is morse code for “I love my wife.”

If I measure the data points (including spaces and punctuation) of the morse code, I end up with 49 data points. If I measure the data points of the English translation, I end up with 15 data points.

Which translation has more information?

In terms of Shannon information there are only four possible symbols in each position for the morse code: ‘.’, ‘-’, ’ ', or ‘/’. In the english text there are more than 53 possible symbols in each position: ‘A’-‘Z’, ‘a’-‘z’, ‘.’ and some other punctuation. Hence each morse code symbol, one of your “data points”, is worth two bits of information because log[sub]2/sub = 2. Each english language character is worth between 5.7 and 6.0 bits, depending on how much punctuation you allow. The morse code is 4 * 49 = 196 bits while the english text is between 5.7 * 15 = 85.5 bits and 6.0 * 15 = 90 bits. If you removed redundant spaces from the morse code message:

“…/.-… — …- ./-- -.–/.-- … …-. .”

its Shannon information reduces to 4 * 40 = 160 bits. Either way the morse code has more information.

Since morse code does not have capital letters and you did not include the final full stop, a fairer comparison would be with “i love my wife”. In this case the symbols come from an alphabet of 27 characters, ‘a’-‘z’ and ’ ', so they are each worth 4.75 bits. This gives 14 * 4.75 = 66.5 bits for the english text. Again the morse code has more information.

The obvious, and logical, answer is that neither does.

The obvious answer is wrong in this case. Using Shannon information they are different, as I have shown. I have shown my calculations; if you disagree then please show yours.

If I then increase the amount of information by stating:

“I love my wife, and my children, and my dog, and my cat”, I would significantly increase the amount of information, yet the data points alone are insufficient to quantify how much information I have increased.

False. I can easily quantify the amount of Shannon information present in the new string. It has 55 characters from an alphabet of at least 54 characters. Taking each character as being between 5.7 and 6.0 bits that gives a total information content between 5.7 * 55 = 313.5 bits and 6.0 * 55 = 330 bits. Taking the higher values, the information in the shorter string was 90 bits and the information in the longer string is 330 bits. That is an increase of 240 bits. I can show that the information has increased and I can quantify by how much the information has increased. This is science, we like to quantify things.

Yet, one thing is indisputable: The information has increased.

Agreed.

How much has the information increased?

By 240 bits.

Tell me, how you would measure that information.

I just did. Now please answer my question and tell me how you would measure that information scientifically.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I noticed that you are maintaining that. Care to answer my question now? What is the intelligence that interprets this language?

If you study linguistics, you’ll note that in language there is someone sending the message, and someone receiving it. Language exist between individuals.

You have said it is a language. Who reads it?

There really is no point reiterating your position. I understand it. Now I want you to defend it. Perhaps you could start by answering that question.

The copies. The information is sent from one to another.

 

[Sideline]

The copies. The information is sent from one to another.

Oh… so the intelligence that created the code was copied from an earlier code.

I agree.

 

[buffalo]

Oh… so the intelligence that created the code was copied from an earlier code.

I agree.

Cool!

That would take us back to the first mind, the Logos, the Word.

“In the Beginning was the WORD. And the WORD was with God and the WORD was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything that was made.” - John 1.1

 

[Sideline]

Cool!

That would take us back to the first mind, the Logos, the Word.

So, “the Word” is your name for the chemical compounds that sent the first chemical messages that made up life. Funny, I thought God was more important than that in your religion.

You said the intelligence was a copy.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
birds lack teeth, because there’s a new allele that suppresses the formation of teeth. They still have the genes for teeth. Hence, this mutation added information.

Well, that’s a BELIEF that evolutionists have.

In the sense that “because experiments have demonstrated that birds retain genes for teeth, scientists believe that the loss of teeth was due to a mutation suppressing their formation.” The loss of teeth required additional information for a suppressor, not the loss of information for teeth.

Mice are often used to study mammalian development, and teeth are easy to work with because they grow well outside the body. Researchers at Harvard and elsewhere figured that a natural substance known as BMP4, which plays a central role in the development of mouse teeth, might be absent in birds, and that suppression of the gene that makes it might be the reason modern day birds do not have teeth.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9400E0DF1E3EF931A1575BC0A9669C8B63

So they tested that idea.

By inserting BMP4-laden beads into the jaw region of chick embryos, they showed that tooth buds would develop, Dr. Richard Maas and colleagues report in today’s issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
ibid

As I noted, “According to evolution, most likely [this is] either a decrease in information, or simply an exchange of information.”

Surprise.

Of course, this all depends on who is telling the story.

Knowing what you’re talking about is a great advantage, yes.

Therefore, order is not information (not equal to information), and neither is it sufficient to define information (contrary to what Barbarian was attempting to claim).

Barbarian observes:
You’ve gotten confused again. I told you that information was a measure of uncertainty. You may find that objectionable, but nevertheless, if you use that definition, it’s possible to greatly compress data and see that it gets transmitted with minimum error. In other words, it works.

No, I am not confused on this point.

You are quite confused. A measure of uncertainty (which is what I told you information is) is not “order.”

You can sit there and spout out that “information is a measure of uncertainty” all day long,

And I can even do the numbers, showing you how it works. Which seems to completely mystify you.

In Biology, you could use Shannon formulations to examine the transmission of DNA during synthesis and other functions of the cell which require the transmission of information.

And in population genetics, you can measure the amount information in a population. That’s what it’s for. I read your post denying Shannon’s equation, but it does you little good. Shannon’s way actually works. Yours doesn’t. There’s no good pretending you have something of use, when you can’t even quantify information in populations.

Learn about it, and you’ll understand why.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
I’m really intrigued about a species unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. Tell us about it.

If you’re so intrigued about it you should read some more.

Don’t know of any, um?

I assumed you were very familiar with evolution but perhaps not so much. I was quoting Ernst Mayr (“The Darwin of the 20th century.” NY Times): “Indeed, the so-called living fossils have hardly changed for hundreds of millions of years.”

Well, let’s test that one; name me one species that has been virtually unchanged for millions of years. Telling me about a newspaper story isn’t what I want. If your answer is you trusted a newspaper reporter to accurately quote a biologist, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about, then we can let it rest. But if you’re asserting that you know this for a fact, it’s time to show us.

What was it you said to PEPSIS? - Not surprisingly, you’re completely wrong about that, too.

We’ll know in a bit when you show us a few of those species. Or don’t. Either way, it’s enough.

 

[buffalo]

So, “the Word” is your name for the chemical compounds that sent the first chemical messages that made up life. Funny, I thought God was more important than that in your religion.

You said the intelligence was a copy.

Bone up on it then.

I said the intelligence was copied. The language, the map, the plan encoded in DNA is copied to a receiver.

Where did this come from? I said - a mind. Whose mind? God’s.