No, calling you "blablaman", "liar", "troll", etc would be calling you names.
Calling your comment passive aggressive is a description of your post, not of you yourself.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Calling your comment passive aggressive is a description of your post, not of you yourself.
Would have been if he had described my post that way. But he described me that way. Words mean things.
Excellent reply. I asked what you mean, you point out what I mean, then you ask me if I forgot what I mean as if I would know you define the word "intent" the same as me in this context. Well done.
To get back to the point...
This is why the "information" argument of creationists fails. All new mutations add information to a population genome.
Barbarian observes:
No. The message would not be anything at all without the receiver. You still don't get what Shannon's theory is about.
Barbarian observes:
No. There are no normative assumptions whatever in his theory.
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, that's not the case. For example, the engineers at Bell Labs, who were concerned about the noise they couldn't remove, found useful information in it. The message was far richer because of noise.
That's a perfect analogy for the genomic "noise" that caused bacteria to be able to digest nylon in factory waste ponds.
The point is that intent is not part of Shannon's theory and is not required for a message.
This is why the "information" argument of creationists fails. All new mutations add information to a population genome.
Barbarian observes:
No. The message would not be anything at all without the receiver. You still don't get what Shannon's theory is about.
Barbarian observes:
No. There are no normative assumptions whatever in his theory.
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, that's not the case. For example, the engineers at Bell Labs, who were concerned about the noise they couldn't remove, found useful information in it. The message was far richer because of noise.
That's a perfect analogy for the genomic "noise" that caused bacteria to be able to digest nylon in factory waste ponds.
The point is that intent is not part of Shannon's theory and is not required for a message.
Nope.
You don't understand even the rabbit trail you are determined to run down.
I guess this is as close to an apology one will ever get from Barbarian. Since it isn't a real apology we can expect he'll go right back to being passive aggressive at his earliest convenience. Until then, back to the topic.
Shannon said, "Frequently the message has meaning… these semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem" And this seems to be what Barbarian is trying to say is what allows noise to improve a message.
But before one gets to the engineering problem, one must conceive of the problem being solved. Shannon states what the problem is he's trying to solve. It is the sentence immediately prior to the quote just mentioned and he says: "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."
This is where Barbarian errs. The problem is that the receiver must receive the message as it was sent or it doesn't work. Even if the message is close to correct, the receiver must be able to ignore the noise that was received and get to enough of the message to act as if the message was received without noise. Despite claims to the contrary, Barbarian ignores the receiver. He never explains how the receiver can act correctly when the sender's message ends up telling it to do something other than what the sender's message said.
I guess that is as close to an apology one will ever get from Yorzhik. Just a few days ago, I apologized to someone here, and I also apologized to Knight for any slights I may have given him. (I'll find them, if you want me to show you) I realize that you're proud and don't apologize. It's O.K. To get back to the topic:
That's another issue. But meaning isn't what this is about.
This is where Yorzhik errs. He still doesn't get it. Noise adds information to the message; "improvement" is not part of his theory. He's still hung up on intent, which is not part of Shannon's theory, either.
Apply this to genetics. It actually works better for population genetics than it does for communication media:
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33.
Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has long been known to be closely related to thermodynamics and physics through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty measure to the entropy function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist.
...
Shannon's work at Bell Labs in the 1940s led to the publication of the famous paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” in 1948 [5] and to the lesser known but equally important “Communication in the Presence of Noise” in 1949 [6]. In these groundbreaking papers, Shannon established information theory. It applies not only to human and animal communications, but also to the states and patterns of molecules in biological systems.
...
Suppose one wishes to transmit some information at a rate R, also in bits per second (b/s). First, Shannon showed that when the rate exceeds the capacity (R > C), the communication will fail and at most C b/s will get through. A rough analogy is putting water through a pipe. There is an upper limit for how fast water can flow; at some point, the resistance in the pipe will prevent further increases or the pipe will burst.
The surprise comes when the rate is less than or equal to the capacity (R ≤ C). Shannon discovered, and proved mathematically, that in this case one may transmit the information with as few errors as desired! Error is the number of wrong symbols received per second. The probability of errors can be made small but cannot be eliminated. Shannon pointed out that the way to reduce errors is to encode the messages at the transmitter to protect them against noise and then to decode them at the receiver to remove the noise. The clarity of modern telecommunications, CDs, MP3s, DVDs, wireless, cellular phones, etc., came about because engineers have learned how to make electrical circuits and computer programs that do this coding and decoding. Because they approach the Shannon limits, the recently developed Turbo codes promise to revolutionize communications again by providing more data transmission over the same channels
DNA works like that. But it's not quite perfect. It has an error rate, even after error correction. The error rates for given organisms are, as you might expect, close to optimum for the optimum rate of variation in for asexual or sexual organisms, and for the normal environment.
This causes no end of confusion for those who are unable to realize what "information" is. This is why it's so hard for someone unfamiliar with the theory to understand that any mutation in a population genome increases information.
Last edited:
Shannon's Brief Foray into Genetics
James F. Crow
Genetics November 1, 2001 vol. 159 no. 3 915-917
CLAUDE Shannon, 1916–2001, was the father of the digital communication age. He laid the mathematical foundations for communication theory and devised a precise definition for the vague concept of information. Although the word “bit” was invented by John Tukey, Shannon made it a household word among scientists, including geneticists. Yet, what is not generally known is that Shannon's Ph.D. thesis dealt with population genetics. Immediately after receiving the degree, he went to work for the Bell Telephone Laboratories and began his path-breaking studies of communication. He never returned to genetics and the thesis was never published. After half a century it was finally reprinted along with most of Shannon's major papers (Sloane and Wyner 1993). The thesis is now readily available for any who are interested in population genetics and its history.
...
Apparently, Shannon spent only a few months on the thesis. Perhaps if the work had been extended, either by him or by others, it might have led to significant discoveries. One gets the impression that he regarded this not as an end but as a beginning of a new methodology. Whether this is correct or not, Shannon went to work at the Bell Labs immediately after receiving his degree. There he found a stimulating environment with outstanding engineers, physicists, and mathematicians interested in communication. This got him started on a new career, and genetics was dropped. The thesis lay buried and unnoticed. In an interview in 1987, he said, “I set up an algebra which described this complicated process [of genetic changes in an evolving population]. One could calculate, if one wanted to (although not many people have wanted to in spite of my work), the kind of population you would have after a number of generations” (Sloane and Wyner 1993, p. xxvii).
Right Divider
Body part
Organisms advancing based on errors... :mock: "the theory of evolution" :rotfl:
It's OK if you don't want to apologize and have a civil conversation. It's standard OP for common descentists to not engage in civil conversation because it's the only way for them to win an argument since they lose on logic and reason.
Shannon didn't find the secret to genetics using errors in messages to change the message from something that worked to a different message that also worked. And it's not only because one can almost never get lucky enough to have errors create a coherent message from the original message. It's because the receiver, and thus the feedback, will be acting differently than what the original message could code for.
On the topic of "intent" or "meaning" - Shannon assumed the reason messages needed to remain perfect or perfect enough that the message could be understood *as the original message* was because the original message was important. Shannon states what the problem is he's trying to solve. And he says: "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."
I think the case against common decent is even stronger: It's impossible to generate a more coherent message than was intended via undirected change.
This is because undirected change is not random, as common decentists would have us believe. It is noise, which is based on explicable interference generated within a knowable range, while intended messages have an utterly distinct pattern to them.
For example, you might get noise from the CMB on an analog TV feed. However, that distortion is only going to be within a tight frequency range, and to generate an image with meaning (snow doesn't contain one, unless you're a Darwinist who will equate static with a baseball game) a much wider range of frequencies is required.
So the "random mutations" part of evolutionary theory is a misnomer. It's actually unintended changes to the genetic code, whether from radiation or chemical interference. These effects will work on a predictable and limited scope of the genome, while intentional changes would target an utterly different range (and it's likely that even changes made by geneticists are not beneficial in the long run).
Right Divider
Body part
It continues to amaze me that these evolutionists (i.e., the common descentists), these "scientists", believe that unintended changes can advance a single-celled creature to a man. :chuckle:
A simple experiment with a photocopier exposes the stupidity of their theory.
However, ditching Darwinism would leave them exposed to the truth of the Biblical account, and they'll wear anything before considering that.
It's OK if you don't want to apologize and have a civil conversation. It's SOP for YE creationists to not engage in civil conversation because they think it's the only way for them to win an argument, since they lose on logic,reason, and evidence.
No, he did something much better. He worked out a way to measure the information in a genome and the nomenclature to make it work. This is why the "information" argument always loses for YE creationists.
It's been observed to happen countless times. No point in denying what I've already shown you. Would you like to see a list of useful mutations, again?
And the additional information occasionally is useful. More often, it's not, but of course natural selection deals with that. It's why engineers are now copying nature, using evolution to solve problems that are too difficult for design.
That's one use of Shannon's theory. The first one, however, was (as you just learned) in population genetics which studies the evolution of populations.
Which is how evolution works. The message can be approximately the original, and be slightly better for the survival of the organism. This increased information can be useful and as Hardy and Weinberg noted, thus become more prevalent in the population.
Shannon's equation can explain why the error-correcting process in DNA is good but not perfect. Too much mutation would be harmful for a population,but none at all would doom it to extinction.
https://kgov.com/atheists#vision
Until an organism could correctly interpret information, the information remains meaningless to it.
Yes, although for most organisms, there is no "meaning" at all. We've been talking about genetic information, and as such,it's not "meaning", but readability that matters. So if a nonsense codon were generated, that particular protein just isn't going to be synthesized. On the other hand, if a readable but different codon results, the protein will be synthesized by the organism, but with one amino acid difference.
Generally, this does nothing at all; proteins are so large that a single amino acid difference usually makes no detectable change in the activity of the protein. But sometimes it does. Sometimes this reduces the viability of the organism, or in rare cases, kills it. Sometimes, it actually makes the organism more fit for the environment in which it lives.
Shannon's point that it increases information applies to the population, and not to the individual, unless there are duplicate genes (which are fairly common). In that case, the information in the individual genome is also increased.
I think this is the point that is so often missed in these discussions. Evolution does not necessarily require an addition in information; in some cases, it could be that information is decreased. It's fairly common in cases of speciation, since those usually involve a small group apart from others of its kind, and the "founder effect" means that the genome of that population will have less information than that of the larger population from which it came.
I hope I've been clear. If there's anything that seems unclear, I'd be happy to enlarge on it.
https://kgov.com/atheists#vision
Until an organism could correctly interpret information, the information remains meaningless to it.
In vertebrates, processing actually begins in the retina. In our eyes, but not the eyes of organisms like octopi, the retina is actually derived from the tissue that forms the brain, and is essentially brain tissue.
When pressed, Darwinists admit that the genome could be literally anything and it would work.