Annoying creationists

[joobz]

But what I'm really wondering is why, if you admit Ev shows information could evolve, and you admit that Ev is an intelligently designed program, that you are not admitting that it really shows that it takes intelligence to get information?

I agree with your desire for actual lab experiments. Models can provide insight, but they can only do so much.

BUt, I don't get this line of reasoning. You can't honestly believe that a simulation verifies ID.

 

[Yahzi]

I’m not a bad applied mathematician and computer programmer and I see no way of rescuing this aspect of the theory evolution from this mathematical conundrum. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Well, there you go. If the great Dr. Kleinman can't figure it out, it must not work!

But you did not answer the questoin (I notice you do this a lot).

You stated that you thought EV was an accurate model of evolution. I asked you why you thought it was accurate. Please tell us why you think it is accurate. What evidence do you have that the model accurately reflects actual evolution?

See, for the rest of us, we believe the model because when given the same parameters as real life, it produces the same results. But you argue this is not the case. So what makes you think the model is accurate?

 

[Yahzi]

I know, I'm sorry. Three sigs just don't work. For anyone who has not seen this beautiful sig:

ID has no answers. It can only make itself look palatable by making evolution look less palatable. It lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth

Actually, I think that's a better quote than my voodoo one. I love that imagery. In fact, that gives me an idea....

 

[fls]

How do you get the original gene to cross-over or invert? You must still have some mechanism to create the original gene.

Yes, and point mutation is one mechanism, but there are others (insertions, deletions, translocations, inversions, duplications...) in addition to genes from other organisms (intra- and inter-species).

I don’t know if that is what most evolutionists agree on. Recombination may drive diversity but recombination can not drive macroevolution because recombination without errors can not add information (create new genes) to the gene pool. Recombination with natural selection can cause the loss of information (alleles) from the gene pool. Neither of the mechanisms (inversions and cross-over) that you propose can create a new gene these mechanisms require and existing gene that must be created by random point mutations and natural selection.

But new genes are not created solely by random point mutations. I mention other mechanisms above. And yes, recombination does usually refer to resorting alleles, but recombination with errors can effectively create new genes. And this is in addition to horizontal transmission of genetic material.

Linda

 

[joobz]

Yes, and point mutation is one mechanism, but there are others (insertions, deletions, translocations, inversions, duplications...) in addition to genes from other organisms (intra- and inter-species).



But new genes are not created solely by random point mutations. I mention other mechanisms above. And yes, recombination does usually refer to resorting alleles, but recombination with errors can effectively create new genes. And this is in addition to horizontal transmission of genetic material.

Linda

Will you stop presenting facts, this seems to anger the ID gods. They may see fit to send back their envoys of repetitive missinformation.

 

[Roboramma]

That's all good and stuff, but why not do the same with actual biology instead?

But what I'm really wondering is why, if you admit Ev shows information could evolve, and you admit that Ev is an intelligently designed program, that you are not admitting that it really shows that it takes intelligence to get information?

Does using a computer to model climate mean that climate is intelligently designed? After all, the model itself was intelligently designed.

Hint: the model is designed such that, for the aspects of the world that we are looking at, it mimics the natural world in ways that are informative (though certainly not in every way).

 

[delphi_ote]

That's all good and stuff, but why not do the same with actual biology instead?

It has been done. The simulation is just a model of what we have already observed in the lab.

But please. By all means. Continue to ignore direct contradictory evidence to your belief.

 

[Cuddles]

I couldn’t get you link to work. I do not believe in perpetual motion machines. Dr Schneider believes his simulation represents the real world

Oops, the link was meant to be http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48951&page=8

To summarize it : AgingYoung has used a computer simulation, of part of the real world, that is only valid within it's design parameters of Newton's Laws, to design a machine that will run forever, thereby showing that Newton's Laws are not correct. Since he is attempting to do something which the simulation is not designed to do, any results he gets are completely meaningless, since they are not valid in the real world.

What you appear to be doing is using a computer simulation, of part of the real world, that is only valid within it's design parameters of single point mutations, to show that life could not have evolved this way, thereby showing that the theory of evolution is not correct. Since you are extrapolating the results outside the design parameters (ie. there are more factors than just point mutation), any results you get are completely meaningless since they are not valid in the real world.

Given that you are both using exactly the same logic to make your points, do you now accept that perpetual motion is possible, or that your argument is incorrect?

 

[joobz]

Oops, the link was meant to be http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48951&page=8

To summarize it : AgingYoung has used a computer simulation, of part of the real world, that is only valid within it's design parameters of Newton's Laws, to design a machine that will run forever, thereby showing that Newton's Laws are not correct. Since he is attempting to do something which the simulation is not designed to do, any results he gets are completely meaningless, since they are not valid in the real world.

What you appear to be doing is using a computer simulation, of part of the real world, that is only valid within it's design parameters of single point mutations, to show that life could not have evolved this way, thereby showing that the theory of evolution is not correct. Since you are extrapolating the results outside the design parameters (ie. there are more factors than just point mutation), any results you get are completely meaningless since they are not valid in the real world.

Given that you are both using exactly the same logic to make your points, do you now accept that perpetual motion is possible, or that your argument is incorrect?

Cuddles, nicely done.

 

[Tez]

Ev and the basics of information theory.
The Shannon definition for information turns out to be mathematically equivalent to the negative of the quantum mechanical definition for entropy.

Well in case anyone cares, this is untrue.

For a single system A in some state Q, the von-Neumann entropy of A is the same as (not the negative of!) the Shannon entropy of the "eigen-preparation" of Q (which is one special way of preparing the state Q, and not always the most desirable one).

There is a big difference when we consider both A and another system B, and the (possibly correlated) states - call them "QR" - between A and B (i.e. correlated probability distributions in the classical case). The Shannon entropy on Q is always less than or equal to that on QR, for the simple reason that in classical information theory you cannot be more uncertain about Q than you are about the joint variable QR. But in the quantum case, in certain cases the opposite is true - the von-Neumann entropy of the joint system can be 0 while that of the individual subsystems is >0!

I wish I got a cookie every time I spotted someone invoking quantum mechanical things they do not understand in the hopes of gaining credibility for their ideas....

 

[AmateurScientist]

Well in case anyone cares, this is untrue.

For a single system A in some state Q, the von-Neumann entropy of A is the same as (not the negative of!) the Shannon entropy of the "eigen-preparation" of Q (which is one special way of preparing the state Q, and not always the most desirable one).

There is a big difference when we consider both A and another system B, and the (possibly correlated) states - call them "QR" - between A and B (i.e. correlated probability distributions in the classical case). The Shannon entropy on Q is always less than or equal to that on QR, for the simple reason that in classical information theory you cannot be more uncertain about Q than you are about the joint variable QR. But in the quantum case, in certain cases the opposite is true - the von-Neumann entropy of the joint system can be 0 while that of the individual subsystems is >0!

Thanks, Tez, for that very good explanation. I even understood some of it. I recognize von Neumann from game theory and Eigen values from some branch of mathematics I studies eons ago but don't use much in my law practice.

I wish I got a cookie every time I spotted someone invoking quantum mechanical things they do not understand in the hopes of gaining credibility for their ideas....

Ah, but then you would be faced with a dilemma (ha, from my math studies --two horns). You would either have to hoard those cookies, or you would get fat. Anyway, I'm with you on the quantum abuse thing. It's one of life's little annoyances.

AS

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But what I'm really wondering is why, if you admit Ev shows information could evolve, and you admit that Ev is an intelligently designed program, that you are not admitting that it really shows that it takes intelligence to get information?

I just don't see where you get that from. The program starts with a random genome and information evolves through a simple set of rules. Why do you think that a set of human-designed rules is any different from an equivalent set of natural laws in this regard?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I wish I got a cookie every time I spotted someone invoking quantum mechanical things they do not understand in the hopes of gaining credibility for their ideas....

Cookie!

It is a rare foray into gobbledygook that does not begin
with a tribute to quantum mechanics. ---Jamie Whyte

 

[joobz]

Well in case anyone cares, this is untrue.

For a single system A in some state Q, the von-Neumann entropy of A is the same as (not the negative of!) the Shannon entropy of the "eigen-preparation" of Q (which is one special way of preparing the state Q, and not always the most desirable one).

There is a big difference when we consider both A and another system B, and the (possibly correlated) states - call them "QR" - between A and B (i.e. correlated probability distributions in the classical case). The Shannon entropy on Q is always less than or equal to that on QR, for the simple reason that in classical information theory you cannot be more uncertain about Q than you are about the joint variable QR. But in the quantum case, in certain cases the opposite is true - the von-Neumann entropy of the joint system can be 0 while that of the individual subsystems is >0!



I wish I got a cookie every time I spotted someone invoking quantum mechanical things they do not understand in the hopes of gaining cr ezedibility for their ideas....

Hi Tez,
I'm not certain he was claiming that the Shannon entropy was the negative of the von-neuman entropy. But rather that "Shannon's definition of information" is the negative of this entropy. Not having studied infromation theory, I don't know if such a view of information exists but at first blush doesn't seem too off.

In either case, thank you for your explanation. I'm one of the many engineers who will never design quantum devices, so I happily ignore those effects.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I just don't see where you get that from. The program starts with a random genome and information evolves through a simple set of rules. Why do you think that a set of human-designed rules is any different from an equivalent set of natural laws in this regard?

~~ Paul

Reminds me of some naturopaths who dismissed a well-designed negative study about the benefits of vitamin E in some area by simply stating that synthetic vitamin E is different from natural vitamin E.

 

[joobz]

Reminds me of some naturopaths who dismissed a well-designed negative study about the benefits of vitamin E in some area by simply stating that synthetic vitamin E is different from natural vitamin E.

Yeah, the synthetic is better absorbed and can be functional for longer durations due to the acetate group's slow cleavage. Lousy synthetic varieties that improve the natural stuff.

 

[delphi_ote]

Cookie!

It is a rare foray into gobbledygook that does not begin
with a tribute to quantum mechanics. ---Jamie Whyte

No doubt. If Tez got a cookie every time someone mentioned quantum mechanics, he'd end up with so many the Girl Scouts would come to him.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Annoying Intelligently Designed Snowflakes

"Information" from nothing -- the snowflake (actual photo of one below).

The study of fractals shows that information and complexity can spontaneously arise from simplicity. A snowflake is a case in point. Nothing but water, air, wind, and a some temperature differences, and something that looks to us like it was intelligently designed emerges. I have a mathematical calculation in my hand from a Scientific American article which supports the claim that in the history of the earth, no two identical snowflake crystals have formed, even though 10^35 snowflake crystals have formed in that time. I have a book of hundreds of snowflake photos that all look unique and most look intelligently designed.

Now, imagine the world full of organic molecules before life emerged -- thrusting up and raining down and churning in the oceans down to the raging volcanic vents, forming together, like trillions of snowflakes, into all manner of complex organic molecules in fantastic patterns, and it just seems intuitively obvious that self replicating molecules -- the first life forms -- could emerge. And the process wouldn't stop when the first replicator started -- it kept happening to them and inside the bubbles that formed around them (the first cells).

Unless, of course, god just has an inordinate fondness for snowflakes as well as beetles and purple sea urchins. Can you imagine him hand-crafting each and every one? I can't.

Look into the crystal, creationists, and tell me if your gut says it was intelligently designed:

Can you trust your gut?

PS: If I intelligently design a computer program that creates snowflake patterns, does that prove that snowflakes are intelligently designed?

Justin -- CHECK!

PPS: Watch the goal posts -- they are about to move.

 

[Beleth]

Beleth, it’s not an unfinished mansion, it’s a house of cards,

We shall see.

and I’m not throwing rocks, I throwing mathematical data.

Someone else had a sig once that described science as a solid wall and hypotheses as things thrown at the solid wall. A worthy hypothesis survived the impact unscathed and left the wall crumbling. Evolution is a pretty strong wall; I fear it will take more than a mathematical construct to crumble it.

But, as I said, we shall see.

And don’t make fun of my house, it happens to be a double door refrigerator box that came with built in ice-maker. I’m planning on adding a chest freezer box room addition as soon as cardboard prices drop a little.

Riiiiight.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I find it funny that kleinman is doing exactly what woos accuse us of with that bumblebee thing. The oversimplified math model contradicts the observations, therefore it absolutely, positively must be the observations that are wrong.