Posted on 05/08/2006 1:17:07 PM PDT by mlc9852
By now I have seen a few different conjectures that deal with the problem of information vs. noise. Claude Shannon deserves credit for organizing the problem in such a way that his description seems to work equally well with regard to all sorts of systems in nature, including human inventions and even cancer research. Now we have to find out why: Shannon gave a description, not a full-blown theory.
I find Shannon enormously appealing. For one thing, he was not an academic. During his most productive period (1940s) he was employed as a mathematical scientist by IBM. He was probably the greatest "thought leader" that company ever had.
But I digress.
Then I have seen detailed studies attempting to quantify the informational demands of complex organisms. WRT the human body for instance, a study I've seen shows that the informational content of DNA is surprisingly small relative to the informational demands of the total organism, which encompass such processes as metabolism, part-to-part organization conducing to the well-being of the whole organism, and so forth. There is an alleged information deficit here of astronomical proportions. So what supplies the deficit?
Rupert Sheldrake proposed an informational field which he calls a "morphogenetic field." It broadcasts information. The question is how a putative receiver is to discriminate the message "intended" for him from the surrounding noise. An analogy to the Internet, with its routers that direct messages to intended receivers, is sometimes given to elucidate the problem.
But that (of course) would still leave unanswered the question: Who or what would be sending messages to intended receivers?
It's still an open question, seems to me. And maybe not even a scientific one.
So if I don't come across with a glib answer to your challenge quickly, please forgive me: When the big boys are still debating one another on the question at hand, it seems the best thing for me to do is simply pay attention to the debate, be patient, and in the end I imagine we'll all have a better purchase on the truth of the matter at hand.
Thank you for writing, csense.
But aren't "stress conditions" what drive "everyday behavior" under the "survival of the fittest" scenario? Species adapt when they are "under stress." Otherwise, they'd just keep on doing the same ol' things; and you can't get any "new species" out of that.
Well jeepers, Coyoteman -- then I guess we'd all just better get down on bended knee and worship this marvel of moral relativism. Er, or is that "cultural diversity?"
No.
When did I say evolution was a hypothesis? What is the point of this statement?
If you want to overturn, or even modify, a theory you better bring some good evidence.
Since I never claimed I wanted to overturn or modify anything - you comment is nonsensical.
Hint: creationism is not it.
I have no idea what you are rambling about. Since I have made no comment about creationism - this comment is nonsensical.
Clearly you simply don't understand the thread. Neo-Darwinists do like to claim that one can not take issue with their beloved theory or explain the gaps in their beloved theory unless an alternative theory or hypothesis is presented. Your comments do not make sense in the context of this thread.
The point is understanding our need in light of our own faults and failures, we pray thanks to our Lord Jesus, who provides a way out of our sorry mortal plight through acceptance of Him and His Holy Grace, which is the Spirit of God, and all Truth.
No need to complain about anything, my friend.
Thanks for sharing, Doc. :^)
Good night, and sleep tight!
I know. That's what makes creationism so special.
Didn't Dr. Behe state under oath, that creationism requires no consideration of any evidence?
LOL!
Now those are fightin' words! ;)
You are rambling again - I am not a creationist nor have I made any comments about creationism - do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Didn't Dr. Behe state under oath, that creationism requires no consideration of any evidence?
What that heck are your rambling about - nothing you are saying makes any sense. Maybe it is "happy hour" in <1/1,000,000th%-land (or "crack hour")
At least I'm not stuck living in 1972.
Cable is so much better than TV was.
You are rambling again - nothing you say makes sense.
Cable is so much better than TV was.
Again - more nonsensical rambling from <1/1,000,000th% - you are a very odd creature (it might be a good time to put down the pipe or take your meds - a mind is a terrible thing to waste)
If you tried reading you would understand more.
Ok Mr. Know-it-all-Pedant, tell us all what <1/1, 000, 000th% is rambling about when he makes nonsensical comments about 1972, cable being better than TV, and the personal prejudice he has again a bogeyman he calls "creationists" - and how that fits into the context of this thread
It goes back to your Matthews quote from 1972, in your post #255. This is not something that popped up suddenly. If you go back to 255 and follow the thread you will see a number of references.
I think I now understand the origin of your first nonsensical comments. You thought I was presenting a quote from Matthews to somehow disprove evolution (seems you may have a creationist bogeyman trapped in your head). Please re-read the thread - you are not even close. The topic was the Pepper Moth studies. The Matthews quote seems to point out Matthews did not think Natural Selection without mutations is an example of "evolution in action".
BTW: the quote mine info has nothing to do with the Matthews comments about the Peppered Moth - I think you need to actually read the thread before you turn to knee-jerk cut-and-paste from talkorigins.org
As for your strange 1972 comment - does that mean, using your logic, evolutionists are struck in 1859? Jeepers, they didn't even have TV is 1859.
:-)
As I pointed out - the Matthews quote I used had nothing to do with the what <1/1, 000, 000th% cut-and-paste from talkorigins.org - it related to the peppered moth studies. As I have illustrated the talkorigins.org cut-and-paste from talkorigins.org has nothing to do with the topic of my statement - you are actually trying to defend this? Please explain what relevance <1/1, 000, 000th%'s cut-and-paste from talkorigins.org has in regards to what I posted.
Dept. of Redundancy Department
:-)
"does that mean, using your logic, evolutionists are struck in 1859?"
You know, I always chuckle at the "200 year old science" gambit. Firstly it isn't true - science has made much progress since Darwin first posited his theory. Secondly, it comes from those who believe is a thousands-of-years-old writing, which hasn't made any progress since!
You need to direct that comment to <1/1,000,000th% - it is <1/1,000,000th%'s logic, not mine. If you "chuckle" at that "gambit" you will guffaw at <1/1,000,000th%'s comments earlier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.