Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[The Barbarian]

Are we done with Shannon?

As you now realize, Shannon's theory is not what they told you it is. You could perhaps answer the question about how a new mutation adds information to a population genome,according to Shannon's theory.

If we go from two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, to a post-mutation genome with three alleles, each eventually at a frequency of 0.3333..., what is the genome information for that gene before and after the mutation?

Show your work.

 

[Stripe]

As you now realize, Shannon's theory is not what they told you it is. You could perhaps answer the question about how a new mutation adds information to a population genome,according to Shannon's theory.

If we go from two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, to a post-mutation genome with three alleles, each eventually at a frequency of 0.3333..., what is the genome information for that gene before and after the mutation?

Show your work.

As you refuse to acknowledge, the increased information has nothing to do with meaning and intent. When a genome becomes more varied, genetic information declines.

Also, you assume the truth of your religion at every turn. The evidence shows that changes in the genetic code are in response to the environment. Random mutations they are not and natural selection has no time to operate.

 

[The Barbarian]

Give him a little time. Patience is called for, here.

 

[Stripe]

Give him a little time. Patience is called for, here.

Calls for rationality enrage Barbarian.

 

[Stripe]

As you refuse to acknowledge, the increased information has nothing to do with meaning and intent. When a genome becomes more varied, genetic information declines.

Also, you assume the truth of your religion at every turn. The evidence shows that changes in the genetic code are in response to the environment. Random mutations they are not and natural selection has no time to operate.

Science. ^^^

Give him a little time. Patience is called for, here.

Not science. ^^^

 

[Stripe]

As you refuse to acknowledge, the increased information has nothing to do with meaning and intent. When a genome becomes more varied, genetic information declines.

Also, you assume the truth of your religion at every turn. The evidence shows that changes in the genetic code are in response to the environment. Random mutations they are not and natural selection has no time to operate.

Discussion. ^^^

Give him a little time. Patience is called for, here.

Derailment. ^^^

 

[Stripe]

As you refuse to acknowledge, the increased information has nothing to do with meaning and intent. When a genome becomes more varied, genetic information declines.

Also, you assume the truth of your religion at every turn. The evidence shows that changes in the genetic code are in response to the environment. Random mutations they are not and natural selection has no time to operate.

Useful contribution. ^^^

Give him a little time. Patience is called for, here.

Trolling. ^^^

 

[The Barbarian]

A few years later Shannon wrote a second, even more famous paper, “A mathematical theory of communication” (Shannon 1948), which gave birth to the science of information theory. This was republished in book form and included a nontechnical introduction and exposition by Warren Weaver (Shannon and Weaver 1963). It immediately became a best seller.

In this paper Shannon showed that, with the proper definition of information, all information sources have a source rate, measured in bits per second. The measure of information was RP log P, in which P is the probability of choosing a particular message from among the alternatives, which is of the same form as entropy, long used as a measure of disorder in physical systems. For information theory it is natural to measure information in logs to the base 2. Thus, a simple system with two equally likely alternatives has log22 = 1 bit of information. The information in 1 bp, if all four pairs were equally frequent, is 2 bits. It was very much in vogue in the 1950s to speak of DNA as a molecule with 2 bits of information per nucleotide pair. I might note that “information” is used in a way that differs from ordinary English. It is a measure of the number of alternatives from which a message may be chosen
https://www.genetics.org/content/159/3/915

 

[Stripe]

Shannon wrote a second, even more famous paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, which gave birth to the science of information theory. This was republished in book form and included a nontechnical introduction and exposition by Warren Weaver. It immediately became a best seller.

In it, he describes exactly what it is that Barbarian refuses to engage over:

“Information is used in a way that differs from ordinary English. It is a measure of the number of alternatives from which a message may be chosen."

https://www.genetics.org/content/159/3/915

We opened this discussion by using information as it is ordinarily used. Barbarian wants that definition eliminated and supplanted entirely with Shannon's.

Unfortunately, he is entirely dishonest and even when humoured with a debate solely on Shannon, he can't apply his own insisted-on definition consistently.

 

[Right Divider]

Calls for rationality enrage Barbarian.

Perhaps that's how he chose his name.

 

[Stripe]

Perhaps that how he chose his name.

Yep. A poster at another site used to call him that, presumably because he had the same MO.

He took it on because that's just how blind he is to his own failings.

 

[Yorzhik]

As you now realize, Shannon's theory is not what they told you it is. You could perhaps answer the question about how a new mutation adds information to a population genome,according to Shannon's theory.

If we go from two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, to a post-mutation genome with three alleles, each eventually at a frequency of 0.3333..., what is the genome information for that gene before and after the mutation?

Show your work.

Yeah, sure, as repeated ad nauseam Shannon information will measure more information if you add noise. But dealing with the noise was the whole purpose of his work. He said, "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

 

[Stripe]

Yeah, sure, as repeated ad nauseam Shannon information will measure more information if you add noise. But dealing with the noise was the whole purpose of his work. He said, "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

The key to Barbarian's misunderstanding is that he is comparing distinct signals.

Genome A has a Shannon information value.
Genome B has a Shannon information value.

That those values might be different is irrelevant. What is important is the ability to propagate each one accurately. That's what Shannon is all about.

 

[Right Divider]

The key to Barbarian's misunderstanding is that he is comparing distinct signals.

Genome A has a Shannon information value.
Genome B has a Shannon information value.

That those values might be different is irrelevant. What is important is the ability to propagate each one accurately. That's what Shannon is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_correction_code

 

[Yorzhik]

The key to Barbarian's misunderstanding is that he is comparing distinct signals.

Genome A has a Shannon information value.
Genome B has a Shannon information value.

That those values might be different is irrelevant. What is important is the ability to propagate each one accurately. That's what Shannon is all about.

Maybe that's why I can't get my point across. Shannon information is a strong argument for intelligent design and YEC yet I haven't been able to communicate the obvious.

The best answer I've gotten isn't Barbarians "noise makes messages better!" but "biology doesn't include messages".

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe that's why I can't get my point across. Shannon information is a strong argument for intelligent design and YEC yet I haven't been able to communicate the obvious.

Your intended hearer is deaf.

The best answer I've gotten isn't Barbarians "noise makes messages better!" but "biology doesn't include messages".

:kookoo:

 

[Yorzhik]

Your intended hearer is deaf.


:kookoo:

I know, right? I can show someone that they can't compress a computer file indefinitely because of Shannon and they start to realize the truth. But try to show them how Shannon works in biology and they never seem to get it.

 

[Right Divider]

I know, right? I can show someone that they can't compress a computer file indefinitely because of Shannon and they start to realize the truth. But try to show them how Shannon works in biology and they never seem to get it.

I am still somewhat surprised that anyone can believe that mistakes can make improvements. Because that is exactly what is being claimed.

The original "message" is being corrupted in some way and yet they think that this is "helping". :kookoo:

And even better yet.... that a long line of these corruptions can turn a simple one-celled life form into a man. :rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, sure, as repeated ad nauseam Shannon information will measure more information if you add noise.

Yep. So that's how mutations cause an increase in information in a population genome.

But dealing with the noise was the whole purpose of his work. He said, "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."

Right. And as you have learned, evolution depends on mutations producing new information that sometimes turns out to be useful for survival of an organism. This is a good thing for populations of organisms, but not so good for someone trying to accurately transmit a precise message. You're getting closer to understanding why Shannon actually set up an entire process for information in genetics.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am still somewhat surprised that anyone can believe that mistakes can make improvements. Because that is exactly what is being claimed.

There's a very large list of favorable mutations. Each one of them was a mistake in translation of a gene. So that's not controversial. Even many creationists now admit that much. Here's AIG's admission (but they couple it with a fallacy)

Perhaps a helpful change might occur, but it would be drowned in the sea of harmful changes.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/mutations-yes-evolution-no/

They bring up an issue that caused Darwin a lot of headaches. If inheritance is like blending paint,then a favorable mutation will be swamped by all the other genes, like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. But Mendel showed that it doesn't work like that. It's more like sorting beads, which means that the mutations will, if they are favorable, tend to increase in the population.