Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
No offense, but this is all covered in vanilla algorithmic information theory (AIT). Rehashing what someone with a solid math background would consider "basic" is usually considered bad form.
You were referring to a Thing That Exists that has a Minimum Description Length (MDL) of zero (also known as the Kolmogorov Complexity of that Thing). "Information" and "Algorithm" are equivalent in theory, with the caveat that in really old information theory (say half a century ago), this was not really true in practice because the mathematics was not well-developed. In AIT, it is always true and is technically the correct version.
You will discover that anything with a description also has a non-zero Kolmogorov Complexity, and therefore is most certainly an "algorithm". I would point out that Kolmogorov Complexity is the size of the smallest algorithm that can generate a given pattern, which implies the existence of said algorithm.
(BTW, you respond very quickly for a tortoise.)
Which is why I do not get my real work done...
Guh. That would be "compliments".
Dogs are an example of a ring species. Unlike the gulls, the extremes aren't geographic, but are based on size.
LichensDidit placemark
A moderately astute observer would also notice that there was no evidence even claimed that there has been any observation of a species of one classification evolving into a species of another classification.
Adaptation/micro-evolution is quite different from macro-evolution.
If macro-evolution had ever been observed, there would be no evolution v. ID/creation debate; would there? Iknow of no evolutionist who has claimed that macro-evolution has been observed. All they do is speculate that it has happened.
This appears to be an admission that evolution is largely based on speculation.
And using this "speculation" make predictions about what future research will show. And have these predictions come true, over and over again.
Please explain the pattern of primate ERVs and the shared mutation that blocks the synthesis of ascorbic acid under an ID or creationist scenario. Now do the same for the cow-hippo-whale example.
See here for details...but I have a funny feeling you've seen it before.
Why isn't common descent the best explanation for these genetic facts?
How is this any different, except in scale, to testing "Anastasia" against known Romanovs, Habsburgs, Windsors, etc, to see if she really is the missing heir to the Russian throne? Or a mundane paternity test?
I'm surprised at the amount of response that statement made.. especially since it was meant to be a sarcastic remark showing that things aren't always what they seem..
I'll have to look up the basis for the original quotes on it, but I'll "bet" it was some sort of urban legend..
Fact is, the mechanics of flight for "bumblebees" ( someone insisted I should be specific ) has been worked out and verified..
Scientists have determined that bumblebees can fly..
Bumblebees world wide are mightily relieved.. ( sarcasm )
Except ID claims the process is incapable of explaining the diversity of species, and rather some intelligence must have had to interfere in the process. Evolution on the otherhand says that there is no reason to think the process isn't capable of generating all the species alive today from one original form.
So now you realise evolution is essentially one of these "programs" or "processes" or whatever you want to call it, perhaps you can now see why the thermodynamic argument against it is totally bogus.
Ah thanks, this has always been a confusion of mine. Unfortunately I am not very skilled at maths at all. One question - is it safe to equate entropy with disorder?
You're a gas. I dare say I probably have one of the better math backgrounds of anyone here -- go find out how many people got an "A" in their Further Mathematics A level in England -- and yet this didn't even come up in my graduate level Ivy League engineering program. In fact, I don't think my Ivy League school even offered any undergraduate courses on the subject, except perhaps as elelctives for CS seniors. How odd.
But then it's only odd if you weren't being disingenuous.
Do you really want to argue that you need a graduate-level degree in mathematics or computer science to have a "solid math background"?
Anyway, if you want to start a post-graduate-level symposium on information theory, that's all well and good, but Ich-Dichy was pontificating about how anyone who argued that SLoT was in conflict with ToE was a complete fool because it was all "basic science". (Basic science enough that apparently many science textbooks are confused on the subject, but I digress...)
You can argue that the most minimal set of information constitutes an algorithm, or set of instructions, and thus the whole universe is programmed, but I was rather hoping that these questions could be resolved by remaining strictly at the level of "basic science".
No offense.
Translation:
E analogy good,
C analogy bad.
the is hardly a difference between "prediction" and "speculation" in this context. Like I said, the trandformation of one species of clas of animals into a species of a different class, has never been observed, It it had, you would not have to use the word "predict".
The first peson to offer proff that this has actually happened will certainly win a Nobel Prize. Quite frankly, it isn't going to happen.
National Geographic is a prestigious journal that is drifting farther and farther left. How soon we forget the China dino-bird fiasco.
Scientific American is a prestigious journal (could be said 15 years ago)
Scientific American WAS a prestigious journal (Today)
The Chihuahua didn't want to get the Great Dane pregnant, but the Beagle put him up to it.
Yes, if one accepts the E take on this.
However, if you do, that means there's been a whole LOT of physical spliting goin' on!
Could there be ANOTHER reason the squirrels on the North and South of the Grand Canyon are so different?
Michael Jackson
This is an assumption, based on what you THINK happened.
The parts are basically the same, yet, we cannot create a human-chimp offspring. (Who has tried a chimp-human one?)
Where is our CLOSEST animal critter? why can we not BREED with them?
Dang!
You make it so simple! ;^)
As a scientist and rational thinker, you would just want to know where THAT [something someone points to, and calls a God] came from.... hence, I'd term myself an atheist, not an agnostic.
This sentence shows that you put a limit on what is called a god. Yours is limited by having a need for a Creator.
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.