Kett's POTD 3-25-11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sherman

I eat Trolls, Spammers, and Loons
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I found another brilliant post.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Tyrathca
Something which is not demonstrated as universal, if it is demonstrated (mathematically) could you show this or direct us to where this is shown?

If I had two sets of DNA but you don't apriori which is the original and which is mutated from it could you determine which is which? Based on you claims that loss of information is universal, and not a mere assumption based on the situation, one would think you could do so. Just quantify the amount of information in each and the one with the most is the original. If you can't do something so simple I fail to see what justification you have for saying random changes lead to loss of objective information.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Yes. But with our current knowledge of DNA and a sample of 2, it wouldn't be enough data. However, when we encounter this situation, we have to assume the veracity of information theory. For instance, if someone comes to you with a perpetual motion machine in a black box, you should immediately assume the 2nd law still works and the black box doesn't.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> I'm not sure why you thought that was an assumption of the truth of evolution. The whole premise of evolution is that the similarity to the original DNA is irrelevant, merely if it survives better or not, ergo it does not fit the criteria for an appropriate scenario to apply your (unspecified) aspect of information theory (I'm assuming some relation to Shannon). It only seems to work in situations where you a priori assume that a change from original must be bad (something which there is no reason to do in evolution/biology). </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
First, it's me that stands squarely on Shannon. Second, it works in every data set we apply it to, including DNA. If it didn't, there would have to be a reason why. Do you have a reason why Shannon doesn't apply to DNA?

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> This is unless you can demonstrate (or reference where it is demonstrated) that your stated aspect of information theory is universal to all instances and measurements of information. If this can be demonstrated then it would challenge evolution, but you have not done so. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
No, information theory is established. Evolution, so far, has relied on "we don't know how DNA works therefore information theory doesn't apply". Thus, it is your side that must show evidence for your claim that information theory does not apply to DNA.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Could you be more specific about which aspect of information theory you think is being claimed can/can't or should/shouldn't be applied? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Shannon. But if you can get by that one, there's a few more to overcome. With all of evolutionists bluster, I think they know Shannon is unassailable, and will never even try.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> You're the one saying that information theory disproves evolution </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
No, you are. Here's your quote: "If this can be demonstrated then it would challenge evolution"

This time Yorzhik makes Tyrathca eat his words. Yorzhik is a very thoughtful poster that forces you to think. My respect for him is growing the more I read his posts and ponder what he is saying. His avatar is rather appropriate--Treebeard, wise, thoughtful and unhasty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top