Posted on 07/24/2003 12:01:57 PM PDT by bedolido
And the ever popular 'exact same mutations found in species thought to be related on other grounds', such as my favorite, the *exact same* mutation in people, chimps, gorillas, et al, that prevents synthesis of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)
Exact same mistake, found in species thought to be related. I inherited my mutation form my parents, as did you, as do the (Other) great apes. Isn't the simplest explanation for this fact the hypothesis that the mutation occured once, in a common ancestor, and was inherited by us and the (Other) great apes?
Here's a discussion of this, from a Christian point of view The ape that bears God's image
An essay well worth reading, includes lots of concrete examples.
The community is small, and I know just about everyone importance. If not personally, then by name. It is the same reason everyone knows me, or at least knows who I am. Germany has a number of the leading people in the field currently. Only a few of the current top people in the field are actually American -- most are European or from Australia and New Zealand.
But more to the point, he discredits himself by what he writes. But then, as far as I can tell, he doesn't claim to be an expert in the field. Only you make that claim for him.
By the way, I'm a German citizen, so I'm not sure how "foreign" that makes me to another German engineer (though I'm not currently in Germany). Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
You'll never understand any of this if you don't understand the very definition of "information". A cursory look at the first chapter of any modern text on information theory will provide you with the beginning of a correct definition. Try the Li and Vitanyi book -- its the de facto gold standard. Hell, I might just copy the definition here, with a page number, so that you know I'm not making it up.
Hint: When you are dead and your body decaying, it will contain more information than when you were alive. If you don't understand why this is true, then you don't even understand enough to begin the discussion. It is fundamental to the definition of information. Look up the definition of "Kolmogorov complexity" on Google. You may not grok it, but trying to is the first step to having a clue.
I love wordplay
But to answer your question, I can't think of anything that occupies a lot of space but has little gravity...
I kind of thought the ton-of-feathers, ton-of-bricks analogy applied
I have asked you where the instructions contained in DNA comes from - for such things a blood clotting, etc. So far - nothing. Please, you were obviously there - tell us. Where do the instructions come from?
The amazing thing about the Internet, the Information super highway, is that we can dwell in anonymity. For all I know you are some 13 year kid sitting in his bedroom, laughing his head off at us.
So with all due respect - I am going to bed - enjoy your flights of fancy, and delusions of grandeur.
Your question is nonsensical. It is premised on assumptions that aren't true (a la the old "have you stopped beating your wife" fallacy). You tripped up when you assume that information in certain finite contexts "comes from somewhere" and that all other information does not. It turns out that there is a finite context for the exact same information where it has no subjective value (provable). This has been hashed out before: pattern "meaning" is provably meaningless and it is relatively trivial to give examples of this fact.
Information simply is, and no finite bit of information is more special than any other. One could ask where the seething pool of information came from in the first place, but that is not the question at hand (nor particularly constructive to address). Everything is information. This fact won't change if you ask the same question enough times. It is in all the texts, even going back to Shannon. This may go against your odd little world view, but it is nonetheless true.
You cannot rewrite mathematics to suit you. Well, you can, but nobody has to listen to you. You either accept the core axioms of mathematics and therefore all the consequences of those axioms, or you don't. Bottom line. In the first case, you should probably respect the opinions of the major texts of the field, and in the latter you can be rightly ignored. Your choice.
Maybe I'm just a well-trained iguana. This does not alter the fact that you do not see anything wrong with contradicting established mathematics on a whim. Willful ignorance really, because you could look it up. Springer-Verlag, Elsevier, Kluwer, and IEEE publish quite a bit on the topic, so there are resources.
In other words, you've chosen a creationist website to be the sole arbitrer of an entire field of mathematics, rather than the mathematical texts that define the field. I'll go with the mathematical texts. Did I mention that I am a VERY well-trained iguana?
In other words, you've chosen a creationist website to be the sole arbitrer of an entire field of mathematics, rather than the mathematical texts that define the field.
This is ultimately what this argument boils down to. It is actually kind of creepy that you would actually be okay with this.
Or they're just very good Christians exercising their faith. If they had facts to support them it wouldn't require faith to believe what they do. IOW your above observation is an absolutely necessary requirement for being a good Christian.
Indeed, the union of those two propensities is known as "faith".
It doesn't only seem so but this is what they indeed claim.
If I'm not mistaken, W. Dembski came up with this "law of conservation of information". However, IMHO this doesn't make any sense at all but well, that's just my opinion.
Based on your premise, the very words you have used to above are meaningless. They come from nowehere, and they mean nothing, apart from your precious math. Therefore, there is no reason, whatsoever, for me to pay attention to you.
In the context of a Freeper thread ( a specific context) what you have said has no meaning. So, ATTENTION all lurkers, we no longer have to give any credence to anything tortoise says, because it is all meaningless.
Adios "smart one"
You started off great, but fell on your ass at the climax. "Meaning" only exists in subjective finite contexts. It does not exist in any absolute context of interpretation, and shared context is the only reason we can communicate at all. If I posted the same thing in Cebuano, it really would be meaningless in your context (presuming that you don't speak Cebuano), beyond perhaps recognizing that it is structured like a language. Of course, if posted the Champernowne index to the same text, you most likely wouldn't even recognize it as a language.
Since we both seem to nominally speak and understand English, we do have some significant subjective shared context and there could meaningfully communicate. On the other hand you don't seem to speak mathematics, so that could be a problem.
In his book, In the Beginning Was Information, the author Werner Gitt explains in detail the principle of information theory, namely defining the characteristics of information and all the observational evidence we have for the origin and formation of information.
He carefully and clearly delineates what is considered information for the purposes of the theory, and the 5-level structure of information, which includes
Statistics,
Syntax,
Semantics,
Pragmatics, and
Apobetics.
It is shown that the well-known theory of information given by Shannon is an important contribution, but can only describe the lowest (statistical) level of information, while ignoring the most crucial aspects of its higher level definition.
All information, as defined by the book, has these higher level aspects, which include the
structure and code (syntax);
the meaning (semantics);
the intended action (pragmatics); and
purpose or goal (apobetics).
Of course that is an oversimplification of the concept, but Gitt does a fine job of explaining it with numerous fascinating examples both from the biological and technical realm.
Gitt shows how all attempts to generate (or simulate the generation of) information apart from a mental process have failed.
This is the most fundamental hurdle that the theory of evolution must overcome in order to claim validity as a complete explanation of the origin of life apart from the Creator or a mental source.
DNA is undeniably information, and it is coded in such an efficient and marvelous way, that it is utterly unmatched by the greatest technological advancements of today.
Even an experiment to show the formation of meaningful DNA from materialistic processes, in sufficient quantity to produce life, would still fall far short of proving this necessary step for evolution, since apart from a meaningful context of proteins and RNA to participate in the replication, transcription, and translation of the information in DNA, DNA is useless.
And as it is well known in biology, the paradox goes deeper: the proteins that are required for replication, etc are coded for BY the DNA! The challenge of information theory to evolution can not be brushed aside, and this book does an excellent job of laying out the theory in a detailed yet understandable and compelling manner.
Gitt's book offers a fresh look at the creation and evolution debate by presenting a robust positive case for creation on the basis of the theorems and natural laws encompassed by information theory and the countless observations that have affirmed this theory. He discuss numerous examples that have been proposed contrary to the it, and how they have failed to falsify the theory. Gitt devotes limited time to discounting evolution, but makes reference to other writings of his that deal with it more specifically. The purpose of the book is not so much to deconstruct evolutionary theory, but to establish by scientific theorems that all known information has a mental source, and this has yet to be disproven.
He is also unabashedly a Christian and a believer in special creation, which comes across clearly in his book, yet he rightly admits that the existence of God can not be proved. However, he points out the consistency of the inference of a Creator with all other observations about information.
"In the Beginning Was Information" will be a very informative book not only for creationists, but evolutionists as well, due to its thorough explanation of information. If you read this book, by all means read the appendix at the end, it contains some of the most intriguing examples in the whole book!
I have asked you simple questions. All I have received is bluster and arrogance. My conclusion is, therefore, that you don't really know what you are talking about and are bluffing, or you are not as educated as you claim to be and therefore cannot reduce your knowledge into language that us laypersons can understand. Either way, you have wasted a lot of time and bytes saying nothing, casting stones at those who wish to learn, and have done nothing more than prove my first point, and that is you are an arrogant ignoramous.
Correct me,please, if I am wrong.
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.