Annoying creationists

[drkitten]

You might find the distinction between information and data easier if you think about a word processor file. You may write the same English text into a "word" document or into a wordperfect document. The data in the two files would be quite different but would be interpreted by English speaking readers in the same way. However, a non-English speaking readers might place a different interpretation. Information comes from data and from interpretation.

There is, in fact, very little information in DNA. The external shape and chemistry of the double helix is very uniform, regardless of its base sequence.

This is nonsensical. The shape and chemistry of the transistors comprising the memory image containing a "Word" document are also very uniform, but that doesn't prevent the document, or the computer's memory, from containing information. It merely means that you're looking in the wrong place for it and using the wrong tools. DNA contains a tremendous amount of information stored in the base pairs. In order to extract that information, the double helix is "unzipped" (which makes the base "pairs" much more chemically active, since they're now exposed to the rest of the world).

I may not be able to read a Word document by eyeball, but that doesn't mean that the document contains no information. It merely means that if I'm stupid enough to go looking for something with the wrong tool, I won't find it. I don't use microscopes as metal detectors, either.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This comment appears to be facetious.

I assure you that the distinction between data and information was not invented by me, it is taught in schools. It is given in Wikipedia and in the BBC's GCSE bitesize for school IT.

It was facetious. If information is ever to be extracted from data, then the data contains an encoding of the information from the get-go.

Wikipedia does mention a distinction:

Information and Data

The words, information and data, are used interchangeably in many contexts. However, they are not synonyms. For example, according to Adam M. Gadomski's observation (1993), data are everything what is/can be processed and information are data which describe a physical or abstract domain.

As opposed to data which describe something that is neither physical nor abstract?

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

OK. But no matter what combination you use of the four words you are equivocating over you can find plenty of people studying evolution form that POV. So what exactly are you proposing?

Please give me the names of people basing their approach to evolution on data.

You can find exactly what I am proposing on my web site, http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk

 

[John Hewitt]

It was facetious. If information is ever to be extracted from data, then the data contains an encoding of the information from the get-go.

Wikipedia does mention a distinction:

As opposed to data which describe something that is neither physical nor abstract?

~~ Paul

Gadomski's defintion of information does not seem usable.

I took the following definition from wikipedia a couple of years ago.

"Meaning of data and information"
"Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information."



You will find much that definition in other places. In any case, it is the definition I use. If you feel another is useful, use it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Please give me the names of people basing their approach to evolution on data.

You can find exactly what I am proposing on my web site, http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk

By the definition you just posted in 1124, anyone who is counting the differences in DNA sequences is doing something based on data. Surely, I don't need to actually list the names of the people doing such research, do I? And to answer a similar question you might pose, anyone comparing the differences in protein shapes between species would be comparing information by your definition.

I'm not inclined to read your entire website. Please say something that succintly demonstrates you've got a novel and possibly useful approach. Based on your definition of "data", an approach to evolution based on "data" is certainly not novel.

 

[Yahzi]

I, like most people, believe that living things are subject to the laws of chemistry and physics but that does not mean or even imply that there is no difference between alive and dead.

Ok, I'll bite...

what's the difference?

(Keep in mind that the context of this discussion is about whether or not "information arising from simplicity due to energy" applies to living systems as well as non-living ones. I mention this because I fully expect Dr. Hewitt to respond with a classic definition of life, as if I were an idiot that did not already know it, thus having neatly redirected the conversation from the original point to a strawman.)

What is the difference between living and dead systems that allows complexity to arise from simplicity with the addition of energy in boxes of granola, but not in genetic populations?

 

[Yahzi]

There is, in fact, very little information in DNA. The external shape and chemistry of the double helix is very uniform, regardless of its base sequence.

Dude, I may be scientifically illiterate, but even I know that DNA doesn't get interesting until it gets unzipped.

If I am aware of such an elemental fact, and you are not, what does that say about your scientific literacy?

Like Dr Kitten said, using the wrong tool just implies you don't know what you are doing.

 

[John Hewitt]

By the definition you just posted in 1124, anyone who is counting the differences in DNA sequences is doing something based on data. Surely, I don't need to actually list the names of the people doing such research, do I? And to answer a similar question you might pose, anyone comparing the differences in protein shapes between species would be comparing information by your definition.

I'm not inclined to read your entire website. Please say something that succintly demonstrates you've got a novel and possibly useful approach. Based on your definition of "data", an approach to evolution based on "data" is certainly not novel.

As I previously pointed out, there is more data in living things than is to be found in their DNA sequence.
I see no point in regurgitating the entirety of my web site on this thread. I suggest you read the index page and then either read on by your own interests or stop if you have none.

 

[John Hewitt]

What is the difference between living and dead systems that allows complexity to arise from simplicity with the addition of energy in boxes of granola, but not in genetic populations?

I do not understand your question about breakfast cereals and do not have the impression that you want a sensible discussion.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As I previously pointed out, there is more data in living things than is to be found in their DNA sequence.

And which data is/are being ignored by other scientists?

I see no point in regurgitating the entirety of my web site on this thread.

Of course. Merely repeat enough to indicate you've got a novel idea worth further pursuit of your website and/or book.

 

[John Hewitt]

And which data is/are being ignored by other scientists?

I do not think the matter is being consciously ignored. My work, bioepistemic evolution, is an example of a multilevel selection theory. This study is unique in that it generalizes the levels using a base in the concept of data and distinguishes levels (I use the word ranks of evolution and levels of knowledge) according to the locus of selection.

Of course. Merely repeat enough to indicate you've got a novel idea worth further pursuit of your website and/or book.

Evolutionary theory constructed this way is particularly applicable to humans in that they possess much more level3 knowledge than any other species. Hence, rank3 evolution should have a more pronounced effect on our species than upon any other species. The analysis of rank3 evolution and its expected impact at rank1 generates theories for the evolutionary origins of human sexuality and humour.
The study of evolution at rank0 leads to the theory of prebiotic oscillations, a theory of prebiosis, aka abiogenesis, which is much more parsimonious than any previous theory. It assumes only a data flow from the sun, namely the alternating zero-one, zero-one signal associated with the day night cycle, and the usual random primordial soup.
Other results also arise from bioepistemic evolution but those listed above are the most striking.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information."

I don't like it. Sounds like an informal definition of information is being used. I wonder if the person was trying to make a distinction between uncertainty and information, but got confused.

Anyway, it doesn't matter too much.

~~ Paul

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

@1131 by John Hewitt

OK, that's helpful. If I recall your definition of "rank", a rank3 influence at rank1 sounds to me as being simply a nomenclature change. Intelligence being a sexual selection factor amongst humans is not a novel idea, for example. Could you point me at something in your website that might compare or contrast your approach to the more common treatments of similar ideas?

 

[articulett]

This is nonsensical. The shape and chemistry of the transistors comprising the memory image containing a "Word" document are also very uniform, but that doesn't prevent the document, or the computer's memory, from containing information. It merely means that you're looking in the wrong place for it and using the wrong tools. DNA contains a tremendous amount of information stored in the base pairs. In order to extract that information, the double helix is "unzipped" (which makes the base "pairs" much more chemically active, since they're now exposed to the rest of the world).

I may not be able to read a Word document by eyeball, but that doesn't mean that the document contains no information. It merely means that if I'm stupid enough to go looking for something with the wrong tool, I won't find it. I don't use microscopes as metal detectors, either.

Beautiful.

 

[articulett]

You finally typed something worthwhile. It's too bad you don't understand what it means.

From what I can tell no one has ever understood quite what you mean. I know you think it's due to your brilliance, but I have reached a very different conclusion as have others on this forum.

But I am always curious why you stick around. It's like your entire goal on this forum seems to convince others that materialism is illogical and that your "intelligent designer" is real.

I think I know what it is. It's like all those creationists who attempt to get an actual scientist to debate them so they can pretend that science takes their claims seriously -- or so they can say "science cant explain "x", therefore goddidit"...oh, and plus you think as long as we can't get you to understand materialsim, your "materialism makes no sense" theory is valid.

You seem to perceive yourself as a wise person interjecting witty banter which prods others to "see the light"--a warrior for your "intelligent designer"--but no-one else seems think of you quite that way. It's a little sad, really.

 

[articulett]

I opened the 8 December issue of Science and what did I find? An article by Martin Nowak titled "Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation." The final sentence:


~~ Paul

Ah yes...but you know that Confirmation Bias will immediately rise up to negate the implication of that article. There are none so blind...

 

[hammegk]

Beautiful.

Interesting, anyway.

If we have a printout of that Word file depicting only the underlying zeroes and ones, is that 'information'? I tend to say, no: that's 'data'.

 

[hammegk]

....as long as we can't get you to understand materialsim, your "materialism makes no sense" theory is valid.

You are a truly silly person. I could defend materialism better than most who post here.

You seem to perceive yourself as a wise person interjecting witty banter which prods others to "see the light"--a warrior for your "intelligent designer"--but no-one else seems think of you quite that way.

ROFL. If you say so, who could doubt such a cogent analysis?

It's a little sad, really.

Not as sad as dupes like yourself regurgitating The Truth.

 

[articulett]

I note that you and Yahzi feel there is no difference between alive and not alive.

No, it's just that your biases have lead you to find that particular meaning in order to support the belief you want. Life is a continuum -- just like speciation On a macro level--we can readily distinguish alive things from dead/inanimate things--but there are things that don't fit neatly in either category. Just as we can see speciation readily from the perspective of time...from a DNA perspective the event is not instant...there is not a "moment" when an animal becomes a new species. The same is true for consciousness. It's your need to categorize that makes the concepts hard to grasp. It's the gray areas between your categories that gives us clues as to how systems, including life itself, evolves.

 

[kjkent1]

...