Creation vs. Evolution

[Yorzhik]

To discuss semantic information, you have to first describe how 'meaning' is to be measured, and as far as I can recall, you have never done that. So your comment is meaningless. The Shannon measure of information generally increases with the addition of the noise entropy, as your reference to Weaver showed and I said a long time ago. That it doesn't match your needs is unfortunate, but there is a reason why most YECs avoid defining which sort of information measure they are using.

The semantic meaning of changes in DNA can be defined in terms of whether it increases or decreases the chances of success for the specific species/organism/gene. In which case those mutations that increase survival chances have more value to the species/organism/gene, implying that the information in that genome has improved for the environment in which it finds itself.

The Shannon information content of DNA is only if interest in a technical sense, since the amount of Shannon information doesn't indicate anything important about an organism (since the genome sizes of successful species varies much more that you'd expect.)

Are you ever going to get to your point, clearly and precisely? I'g guess no, since you've picked up Stripe's deceitful tactic of pretending to have answered difficult questions in a previous, yet unidentified, post even when it is not true.

So is how this works that you just ignore my post and then ask when I'm going to get to give an answer? I suppose you burying your head in the sand hurts you more than me, so here is the point from the post you ignored:

Since semantics cannot be measured, all encoded messages are perfect according to Shannon.

I suppose I'll just have to keep reminding you since your reading comprehension might improve with repetition.

Whether it be semantic information or not, the information can only degrade with noise. Which, if you work hard to misunderstand, means semantics doesn't matter with respect to the amount of information.

And as a test to see if this is true, let's see you restate my argument in your own words. I'm betting you won't even try.

I won that bet this first time.

It is clear, at least, that Yorz recognises that mutations cause an increase in Shannon information, especially when combined with gene duplications, insertions and chromosome duplications. Since evolution only requires variation in genotype that cause differential survival rates in the phenotype, there is nowhere else to go here. Mutations cause variations, evolution selects those that happen to work. End of story.

I wonder what he'll claim now, seeing that he has proven himself wrong with his own linked sources?

But the highlighted portion has to be supported first. And so far, it is just your declaration that claims that noise according to Shannon doesn't degrade the signal in cell messages. Supply some evidence that noise in cell messages normally adds information "that happen to work" if you want to show me wrong. Nothing else will do.

And while you're at it, you'll be showing us how it doesn't apply to all digital communications.

And while you're at it, when Weaver said, "It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information." who was he saying the joker is?

 

[Yorzhik]

it supports your point that size doesn't matter. The whisk fern has a huge genome but duplication adds no meaningful info. . And, quite possibly it supports Yorzicks point about noise.
There is no mechanism that can add meaningful info.

Shannon would dictate that the information content in the original message cannot be exceeded by the information content of the result. But Shannon also says that if you measure a lot of noise as information in a received message, then there *will* be more information than the sent message contained. It's not really hard to understand because they assumed the message sent was the message that was supposed to be received. Regardless of whether the message made sense or not to the receiver, the message was supposed to be received how it was sent. This is what Shannon meant when he said meaning didn't matter. And since there is no way to measure how important a received message is, Shannon could not (nor could anyone) create a mathematical model that measured how much "meaning" there could be in a message.

This is simple to understand, and Weaver, who was the coauthor of The Mathematical Theory of Communication, didn't need to say so but still mentioned anyway that people that thought noise could add information to a message were jokers. And so they are unless they can prove otherwise. And that's the point. Once Shannon is admitted to be true, it's now the job of people that say mutations add information to DNA to prove how they overcome Shannon.

 

[alwight]

My question got to the heart of the matter, so I understand why you see that as stupid.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post

Oh, one thing before I go to your next quote. Is DNA and the protein it makes the same thing?

:liberals:

But not perfect, thus the correction systems.

It nevertheless has almost complete fidelity as a transcription process, what is the need cite Shannon information?

And the eyes glaze over again. Too bad.

You could try to address the point sometime.

But in any case the point is that I made you go looking for a citing and save me the bother of covering any and all such possible details, as per your usual tactic.

:darwinsm: Yeah, you said something wrong just so I could show you how wrong you were. Great plan. Keep doing that.

Not true, I simply talked about the transcription system as being highly accurate, no error correction was indicated in the video, you are the one who erroneously likes to imply some kind of messaging / transmission system probably so that something else (Shannon) can be inappropriately applied, presumably as more YEC smoke and mirrors.

So you really think there are no correction systems after mRNA is formed? Are you sure about that? If there is a correction system after mRNA is formed, would that cause you the tiniest bit of pause about your trust in mutation+NS creating all the diversity of life we have on earth today?

Why don't you tell me about how your God fixes His own mistakes Yorzhik? Attempting to limit mistakes would be a natural thing to happen in any natural world right? Why shouldn't any changes that do nevertheless get through not be subject to natural selection?
But no doubt you'd rather obfuscate with Shannon?

:darwinsm: Seems like when I get "coerced" I give honest and factual answers. You can admit that at least.

Where exactly is this transmission / messaging system that we can apply Shannon to Yorzhik?

Because just mentioning the word "supernatural" even if the context isn't about it creates a response in you that ignores context completely and launches you into an anti-supernatural diatribe. That kind of irrational response can only be due to anger and hate or fear. Since your posts are so full of unintentional humor, I'm sure it must be fear because anger and hate are depressing to read about.

Imagining things that simply aren't true is what YECs are rather good at it seems.

Anytime evidential support comes up you scream CONSENSUS! because the evidence is almost always against you. You never believe consensus based on evidential support because you never look at the evidence. If you did look at the evidence you'd discuss it instead of your eyes glazing over when I bring it up.

Science is supported by falsifiable facts and evidence rather than assertions, by all means do falsify away Yorzhick.

I'll believe any consensus supported by the evidence. Bring some evidence and I'll consider it.

No you won't, you are obliged to adhere to ancient scripture whenever there is a conflict.

But, wow, what a bunch of emotion you have pent up. Tyrannical God? Where does that come from?

From you and other YECs who mindlessly adhere to a literal OT before reality.

So you are saying that DNA is protein? That's demonstrably false.

Where have I ever suggested that?
I'm only saying that you don't seem to know a transcription system from a transmission / messaging system.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

 

[Tyrathca]

So you really think there are no correction systems after mRNA is formed? Are you sure about that? If there is a correction system after mRNA is formed, would that cause you the tiniest bit of pause about your trust in mutation+NS creating all the diversity of life we have on earth today?

Am I the only one still confused as to what mRNA/transcription/translation has to do with inheritance or mutations?

Since semantics cannot be measured, all encoded messages are perfect according to Shannon.

Shannon makes an assumption (that the original message is perfect and any changes from it are bad). His assumption says nothing about the nature of the universe and it's ability to create new information, it is simply a useful assumption for human communication systems.

Whether it be semantic information or not, the information can only degrade with noise. Which, if you work hard to misunderstand, means semantics doesn't matter with respect to the amount of information.

I'm sorry but are you still the same Yorzhik who said THIS:

Of course noise adds information.

But the highlighted portion has to be supported first. And so far, it is just your declaration that claims that noise according to Shannon doesn't degrade the signal in cell messages. Supply some evidence that noise in cell messages normally adds information "that happen to work" if you want to show me wrong. Nothing else will do.

What evidence will you accept since the standard of mutations improving fitness (easiest examples being common human pathogens) are rejected by you on the basis that information still decreased (somehow). It's circular.

And while you're at it, you'll be showing us how it doesn't apply to all digital communications.

Digital communications assume that only the original message is desired. The information of the received message with lots of noise may have lots of information about something (eg. about the source of the noise) but because it is not what the receiver wants it is assumed a priori to be bad.. Genetic algorithms may be the best example of where digital noise/mutations is not assumed to be negative.

And while you're at it, when Weaver said, "It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information." who was he saying the joker is?

Weaver is quite clear that "information here is used with a special meaning" specifically he makes the assumption that increased information due to the sender is good and increased information from sources other than the senders choice (noise) is bad.

"Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion."

I.e. Yes noise introduces more information but it is obvious in the context of human communications that this is "undesirable" information and only the original message is "useful".

With inheritance and mutations however there is no such thing as desirable or undesirable, so the assumptions which lead to Weaver's comment don't apply in the new context.

 

[alwight]

That poor old whisk fern can't handle any more mutations. It once was a flowering plant more beautiful than orchids, but mutations have reduced it down to an ugly weed.... Not really, but you get the point. Mutations corrupt and destroy.*

You don't have to decide what a fern's genome can deal with, that would be something for natural selection to deal with if it ever came to that.

I understand your point..... however it could be argued that *the "simple construction" is actually beyond the sophistication level of anything man has created.*

Clearly you are rather more keen than I am to conclude that something living requires a supernatural kick-start and was originally highly complex and created. I only find a rational naturalistic explanation from simple to complex to be reasonable given the great lack of supernatural unexplainable physics that seems to be happening.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps it really was a beautiful flower a few thousand years ago that has lost information due to mutations.

Define beauty. Beautiful flowers are there mainly to attract pollinators bees, insects, do they define beauty?

 

[MichaelCadry]

You are simply confusing coincidence with something you want to be true and miraculous. A miracle might be 7 inches of snow falling on the fourth of July, unless the tilt of the Earth had changed.

You sure expect a lot from a sign from God. You are just trying to belittle the sign of snow that was given. Yes, NYC was quite 'astonished' at it, having that much snow in one dose. I guess you are hoping that God will tilt the Earth on it's axis so we can try to believe it is an actual miracle.

pt your assurances butter no parsnips Michael while I don't believe you have received any accurate information direct from God, you only believe you have. The OT is the mainly unverifiable writings of ancient middle-eastern people nothing more.

I'm not trying to butter parsnips, though it sounds quite appetizing. I'm trying to direct souls to an eternal life and not an eternal bummer. I thought surely that I mentioned that a third of the people on Earth will die and after 1,000 years, they shall live again in another lifetime {see Rev. 20:5KJV}. They shall get another chance. Those whose names are found written in the Book of Life shall go to Heaven {see Rev. 20:15KJV}. I can't say whether any atheists on Earth now will go to hell. Only God knows that. I'm sure He is quite fair and He will see what you all do in your next life. You will lie in the dirt for 1,000 years before living again. "And the rest of the dead did not live again until the 1,000 years were finished." God is compassionate to give you another chance, but you could get it right this time instead of the next time, for it is supposed to be even worse than now. I would hope that your name is found in the book of life. You are so kind and caring, that I trust that your name is there. Same with Hedshaker and all. You've all been in my prayers every night and I pray that God will let you into Heaven, because you don't know what you are doing.

Absolute nonsense, Michael. Please do explain the necessity of such carnage, what rational purpose is served by any of it? Whatever God does is OK simply because God does it? Right and wrong are only what God says it is?

Alwight, you know of a Great Flood that was also 'carnage.' God looked down at the people and repented that He even made them. So He took them from the Earth by a flood. Look at the 'carnage' regarding what happened in the Holocaust. That was no picnic either. So, it happens.

Come on Michael, do try to be realistic. What is the point of God inflicting terrible eternal pain on people who never asked to called into existence and now apparently can't even die their way out. Think it through for once, that just isn't going to happen, it's ignorant silly dark ages thinking.

You have done nothing to dissuade me that you aren't bonkers Michael while your track record as a prophet sucks, as Americans will say. lain:

Alwight, the devil, Satan believes that he can surpass God!! Now you just don't believe in God. Welcome to the 'dark' ages. I am just trying to warn you about things you don't believe in yet. You may benefit from what I've told you all of this time and will remember it for future reference, when you need it. It will not just all go away because you say so. God has the say-so. The Bible does say that 666 other people and the beast/Antichrist and the false prophet with him, they shall all be cast into the 'lake of fire' {our Sun}. That much I do know {see Rev. 19:20KJV}.

This has taken me over an hour to post. My computer is running slow when typing in this box. There's got to be another way. Okay, will get going. More news to share with you later.

God Rest Your Soul!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Definition of meaningful: having importance or value.....the opposite of junk.... the opposite of meaningless.

Great - you have given a definition of meaning that does not help you to quantify the amount of meaningful information in the DNA. Well done, 6days, you have completely met my expectations. :up:

So this question still stands - ho can you define meaningful information (in a way that lets you see if the quantity has increased or decreased following mutations).

 

[gcthomas]

but still mentioned anyway that people that thought noise could add information to a message were jokers.

Tyrathca has answered your last post to me, so I'll just comment on your interpretation of the 'where the joker is' comment: it is obvious to a native speaker that 'the joker' in this context refers to the role of the Joker in a game of cards, not a joking person. The Joker is often a wild card (that has a special function in the game), so the Joker in this case means that you have to pay special attention to the meaning of the word 'information' or you will get confused. And you have certainly got confused here. :doh:

 

[alwight]

You sure expect a lot from a sign from God. You are just trying to belittle the sign of snow that was given. Yes, NYC was quite 'astonished' at it, having that much snow in one dose. I guess you are hoping that God will tilt the Earth on it's axis so we can try to believe it is an actual miracle.

Miraculous claims would require extraordinary evidence imo Michael, not just someone's say so.

I'm not trying to butter parsnips, though it sounds quite appetizing. I'm trying to direct souls to an eternal life and not an eternal bummer. I thought surely that I mentioned that a third of the people on Earth will die and after 1,000 years, they shall live again in another lifetime {see Rev. 20:5KJV}. They shall get another chance. Those whose names are found written in the Book of Life shall go to Heaven {see Rev. 20:15KJV}. I can't say whether any atheists on Earth now will go to hell. Only God knows that. I'm sure He is quite fair and He will see what you all do in your next life. You will lie in the dirt for 1,000 years before living again. "And the rest of the dead did not live again until the 1,000 years were finished." God is compassionate to give you another chance, but you could get it right this time instead of the next time, for it is supposed to be even worse than now. I would hope that your name is found in the book of life. You are so kind and caring, that I trust that your name is there. Same with Hedshaker and all. You've all been in my prayers every night and I pray that God will let you into Heaven, because you don't know what you are doing.

Sorry Michael but I don't believe a word of this as any more likely than the Lord of the Rings. It isn't going to be that way because it's all imaginary fantasy.

Alwight, you know of a Great Flood that was also 'carnage.' God looked down at the people and repented that He even made them. So He took them from the Earth by a flood. Look at the 'carnage' regarding what happened in the Holocaust. That was no picnic either. So, it happens.

There was no Global Flood Michael, it never happened. Men are not all powerful and they don't always care what they do to others. I see no reason for a supernatural omnipotent entity who cares to be so cruel and callous to helpless beings.

Alwight, the devil, Satan believes that he can surpass God!! Now you just don't believe in God. Welcome to the 'dark' ages. I am just trying to warn you about things you don't believe in yet. You may benefit from what I've told you all of this time and will remember it for future reference, when you need it. It will not just all go away because you say so. God has the say-so. The Bible does say that 666 other people and the beast/Antichrist and the false prophet with him, they shall all be cast into the 'lake of fire' {our Sun}. That much I do know {see Rev. 19:20KJV}.

This has taken me over an hour to post. My computer is running slow when typing in this box. There's got to be another way. Okay, will get going. More news to share with you later.

God Rest Your Soul!!

Michael

I don't believe in Satan any more than I believe in your God Michael, it makes no difference to me whatever was written in an ancient scripture because it's mainly all just about assertions, religiosity and ignorance, nothing more, certainly not based in testable facts and evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm glad you asked....

Other than your repeated slimy attempts to give creationists credit for the work of others, the only actual answer you gave to my question is this...

Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

Once again we see all sorts of claims about "genetic information" and relative amounts of it, yet neither you nor any other creationist can answer this very obvious and simple question:

We have two genomes. How do we tell which has more "genetic information"?

 

[6days]

Clearly you are rather more keen than I am to conclude that something living requires a supernatural kick-start and was originally highly complex and created.

Science and logic show us that complex sophisticated information systems have a designer.*


God's Word confirms life is the result of a supernatural kick-start.*

 

[6days]

how*can you define meaningful information (in a way that lets you see if the quantity has increased or decreased following mutations).

ORIGINAL... 1+1=2


MUTATED *1+1+1+1=2


Its not about quantity.*

 

[gcthomas]

ORIGINAL... 1+1=2


MUTATED *1+1+1+1=2


Its not about quantity.*

[Hint: No elementary school sums in DNA]

So you can't define 'meaningful information' in the context of DNA and inheritance - why don't you just admit it?

 

[6days]

Hint: No elementary school sums in DNA

No...... more like rocket ship technology.*

So you can't define 'meaningful information' in the context of DNA*

*

A definition was provided.

 

[Jose Fly]

The question no creationist anywhere can answer:

We have two genomes. How do we tell which has more "genetic information"?

 

[alwight]

Science and logic show us that complex sophisticated information systems have a designer.*


God's Word confirms life is the result of a supernatural kick-start.*

Fractal life produced great complexity from very simple repetition over millions of years, your presumption of a designer isn't warranted or required as an explanation, since inserting a miracle at some point just isn't science. More sophisticated life evidentially finally emerged much later on, meaning none of which fits even remotely into the literal Biblical time scale of fundamentalist YECs.

By definition you cannot explain a supposed supernatural given that you are indeed merely natural, nor can you claim to know that it caused anything complex to come into existence as is, it's only your evidence-free belief. You also cannot know that complexity ever needed to exist from the beginning but you do want complexity to somehow indicate evidence of a supernatural. But it just doesn't, it's only a circular argument, just as you suppose that the Bible is God's word and therefore whatever it says is always true, therefore it is the word of God etc... :dizzy:

 

[6days]

Fractal life produced great complexity from very simple repetition over millions of years

Once upon a time, long....long ago...

You believe in just so stories.*

your presumption of a designer isn't warranted or required as an explanation, since inserting a miracle at some point just isn't science.

The most scientific explanation... and the most logical evidence is that a "super intellect" created.


The Most famous atheist of his day, Anthony Flew fought against an 'Intelligent Designer' for more than 50 years saying "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Flew finally concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

 

[MichaelCadry]

When did this happen Michael and who confirmed the 7 inches for you?
Where is this 3 hour interview? What news agency was it for and when was it published?
You are supposedly in contact with an infallible god, if you are actually reliable at discerning what he says and thinks you shouldn't EVER be wrong about his predictions. I.e. if you claim god said something would happen then it doesn't happen either god isn't infallible or you aren't any good at figuring out what he says. So which is it? Is god sometimes wrong or are you a bad prophet?

Dear Ty, This happened back in March, 1978 and the 7" of snow was confirmed by the New York Post, a rival of the New York Daily News. I had my 3-hour interview with the Daily News reporter and the reporter said that he couldn't help me after the interview was over and that I would have to talk to the owner of the newspaper if I wanted a story done. I declined. The reporter still knows what happened and that is good enough for me. Hey, I make mistakes sometimes. You don't have the slightest idea about what it's like to be a prophet. Even Moses messed up. Plus he killed someone even before the Lord contacted him. God is never wrong. I am a good prophet who has made a couple mistakes. I am not a bad prophet, just not perfect, I guess.

Normal regular people can be wrong, but prophets aren't meant to be regular people because if we can't trust one of your predictions how can we trust ANY of them? You're just a regular person not a prophet Michael (that's why you got your predictions wrong)
You're very very light on details Michael, you're not making something up to "impress" us atheists again? Can't you at least share some simple details? What are you afraid we'll find? Or won't find maybe...

Prophets are also normal regular people and I am living proof. If you knew enough about prophets, you would know that they make mistakes too. Moses made the mistake of hitting the rock so that water would flow from it for the Israelites to drink. He struck it as if he had the power over it to give water, instead of attributing it to God's power instead. Because of that, Moses never got to see the Promised Land. Jonah also made a mistake and ended up the in belly of a great fish for 3 days, before the fish vomited him out onto dry land. The disciples and apostles made the mistake of thinking that Jesus would return soon, way before their own deaths. So even they expected Him sooner than God had determined. I can name more, but I'll get on with this. I am not trying to impress an atheist, by any means. I've shared some simple details with you, if not more than enough. You just have not read ALL of my posts since I started posting this thread. It has A LOT of answers in it. I am not afraid of your finding anything. Where is your head?

Anyway does this mean you have a pdf copy of each already? If so then I will contact you with a method to easily share it (All you need to know is how to use email). I await your confirmation.
What do you mean by EXTREMELY soon, Michael? I'd normally call days to at most weeks extremely soon but that's just me. Surely by saying this you at least have a rough idea (otherwise you shouldn't have even said soon, let alone extremely soon). So what is it? Days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, eons, hell freezes over first?

No, I do not have a pdf copy of each yet. I've been busy with learning Windows 10 and this new TOL. Please give me more time for my confirmation.

I mean surprisingly soon. Now you are asking me to give you a time again, which is what DavisBJ did and me trying to pin a certain season that it would happen. I'm not in the business of guessing WHEN for you all any longer. That's how I made one of my two mistakes here. You don't even know about that yet, do you? You sure want a lot for being here for such a short time. You live in Australia, right? Just wondering.

Have a good day today,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

A definition was provided.

So you could now calculate the amount of meaningful information in a genome before and after a mutation? Or in a small and large genome as asked?

No, you can't, because you didn't give a definition, but a vague hand-wavy metaphorical description of something unrelated to DNA in a cell.

 

[gcthomas]

The Most famous atheist of his day, Anthony Flew fought against an 'Intelligent Designer' for more than 50 years saying "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads." Flew finally concluded, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

That's what you get when you listen to philosophers instead of scientists for your opinions on scientific topics.
:idunno: