tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post114268448030317494..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Nancy Pearcey: The Creationists' Miss InformationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5494684765632660852016-09-10T04:09:27.046-04:002016-09-10T04:09:27.046-04:00"Noise degrades communications signals, howev..."Noise degrades communications signals, however, just as mutations degrade a genome. (See ch. 9)"<br /><br />That alone should convince you that Perry Marshall has no idea what he's talking about. "Degrade" has no scientific meaning and furthermore, mutations are one of the principal sources of innovation in evolution.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21560449477355442702016-09-10T04:05:14.617-04:002016-09-10T04:05:14.617-04:00"code" has many different meanings. Und..."code" has many different meanings. Under the definition of "code" as used by, for example, people who work in formal language theory, DNA is not a code.<br /><br />Perry Marshall is, to put it mildly, rather misinformed in his book. Why creationists insist on trying to learn biology from people who are not biologists is rather puzzling.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60163670041350738602016-09-09T18:14:17.788-04:002016-09-09T18:14:17.788-04:00Back on March 20, 2006 - about a decade ago - Jeff...Back on March 20, 2006 - about a decade ago - Jeffrey wrote in a comment (above): "... is DNA a code? No, because codes are sets of words, and DNA is a molecule. When we interpret DNA as a string of symbols, that is our interpretation."<br /><br />Ten years later, does Jeffrey still contend DNA is not a code? <br /><br />In Perry Marshall's recent book, Evolution 2.0, he cites numerous (secular / scientific) sources for the definition of "code" and goes further to say: "DNA is a code-based communication system." <br /><br />He explains in the book:<br /><br />◦ Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.<br /><br />◦ DNA’s definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960’s.<br /><br />◦ DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages<br /><br />◦ DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon’s 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.<br /><br />◦ Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code. <br /><br />A detailed discussion, with citations to references, is available online at cosmicfingerprints dot com under the title: Is DNA a Code?<br /><br />The Evolution 2.0 book also explains that DNA's operation as a communication channel is subject to noise, like any such channel. That noise is "mutation." Noise degrades communications signals, however, just as mutations degrade a genome. (See ch. 9)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-64748640533949015632014-06-10T04:55:52.904-04:002014-06-10T04:55:52.904-04:00Would that also hold true with a lengthy work of l...<i> Would that also hold true with a lengthy work of literature? Is the amount of information in an Agatha Christie novel evidence of random production?</i><br /><br />Yes, I'd say so. Ultimately, random interactions are responsible for much of everyday activity, and creativity is probably a process of "generate-and-test", where the "generate" part is a random process.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21599199469584845732014-03-27T00:05:57.176-04:002014-03-27T00:05:57.176-04:00I appreciated the discussion in this post. As some...I appreciated the discussion in this post. As someone new to information theory, I do have a question about one of the final points you made, that high information content is evidence for random production. Would that also hold true with a lengthy work of literature? Is the amount of information in an Agatha Christie novel evidence of random production? Of course, there's far less information in a novel than in a strand of DNA, so is there a point at which increasing amounts of information begin to point to randomness rather than deliberate order?<br /><br />Thanks so much for your help, and again, thanks for the thoughtful post!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825787888437255436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19105689122301056732008-04-10T09:03:00.000-04:002008-04-10T09:03:00.000-04:00Anonymous:If you have a point to dispute in what I...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>If you have a point to dispute in what I wrote, make it. Character assassination without any argument, while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, is not a very effective response to the points I made.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-88594528199884607492008-04-09T21:09:00.000-04:002008-04-09T21:09:00.000-04:00I guess we are to assume that Shallit has never to...I guess we are to assume that Shallit has never told a lie and therefore is completely reliable in every sense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1150191921953309302006-06-13T05:45:00.000-04:002006-06-13T05:45:00.000-04:00Dear "justasking7":If you ask a mathematician what...Dear "justasking7":<BR/><BR/>If you ask a mathematician what a code is, don't be surprised if you get a mathematical definition. <BR/><BR/>I agree that the word "code" can be used in different ways. Why don't you tell me what <I>your</I> definition is, before asking me to produce examples?<BR/><BR/>As for my example, light shining on ridges doesn't necessarily imply any biological being. Or haven't you seen the sun lately?<BR/><BR/>I still don't see your point. Everybody agrees that biology results in special behavior. If your goal is to produce something about biology we don't see elsewhere in the universe, you could have said "Where else do we see imperfect replication going on for billions of years?"Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1150162597720774342006-06-12T21:36:00.000-04:002006-06-12T21:36:00.000-04:00Jeff Shallit, wrote:"First, let's clarify what you...Jeff Shallit, wrote:<BR/><BR/>"First, let's clarify what you mean by "code". To a mathematician, a code is a set of words S such that any word that can be written as a product of words in S only has one such representation. In other words, there is unique decipherability. Thus the set {a, ab} is a code, but {a, ab, ba} is not, since aba can be factored as (ab)(a) or (a)(ba).<BR/><BR/>Given that, is DNA a code? No, because codes are sets of words, and DNA is a molecule. When we interpret DNA as a string of symbols, that is our interpretation. Maybe the proper way to think of DNA is something entirely different, let's say, something involving topology."<BR/><BR/>Respectfully, Prof. Shallit, you dodged my question in two ways:<BR/><BR/>1. You introduced an arcane narrow definition of code from mathematics, and then some other definitions in different contexts.<BR/><BR/>In the April 2004 edition of Scientific American, the authors Freeland & Hurst published their article entitled: "Evolution Encoded: New discoveries about the rules governing how genes encode proteins have revealed nature's sophisticated 'programming' for protecting life from catastrophic errors while accelerating evolution" (Page 84)<BR/><BR/>Further, the authors note that "three-letter sequences, or codons, of DNA and RNA encode the individual amino acids that build and maintain all life on earth." (Page 84) Throughout their article they use the term "code" to refer to DNA and genetic processes.<BR/><BR/>On page 87, they discuss the "decoding rules" for genetic materials.<BR/><BR/>I guess either they are clueless hacks (trolls like me?) -- or your definitions are not the only ones used. Those science authors think they are dealing with encoded information that is decoded to produce effects in cells, and they use the term "code" without apology.<BR/><BR/>2. You did not address my question, which asked about the material forces, outside of biology-derived processes, that create codes along with the encoding and decoding devices that use the codes. <BR/><BR/>The ice core example you gave could, being generous to your assumptions, suggest an encoding process. Where is the non-biology-derived *decoder*?<BR/><BR/>Shining the light as you suggest, is an action taken by a biological being or something created by a biological being. I'm looking for the purely material, non-biological example of a decoder.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your response, I appreciate it very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1143135166974321382006-03-23T12:32:00.000-05:002006-03-23T12:32:00.000-05:00Jeffrey, here is a “string” which I believe to be ...Jeffrey, here is a “string” which I believe to be “information”, …….. what do you think?<BR/>100110100011100001000011 (Sam)<BR/><BR/>I'm not Jeffrey but I'll take a stab at it: yes, it's information -- a bit-string. It contains exactly 48 bits of information (or maybe less, assuming some possible compression). (Steve Watson)<BR/><BR/>Steve, are you not SEEING 48 bits of info because you are looking through your “Information Theory glasses”? Maybe counting “possibilities” per sequential “position”, rather than “bits/no-bits”. (Sam) <BR/><BR/>“Here is where you go off the rails. You are no longer asking about "information" (as the term is used in info-theory), but about the meaning of the string.” (Steve Watson)<BR/><BR/>You are right, I guess. But answer me this: Iffen you are talking “Evolution and DNA” and/or “Creation and DNA”, are you not talking “meaning of the DNA string”, information content?<BR/><BR/>And if you are talking “Creationists”, they are like Jell-O and you don’t have enough nails to keep them on the wall. <BR/><BR/>Ya really can’t argue with them, ….. ya hafta make them look stupid in the eyes of their followers to which they must then “explain themselves”.<BR/><BR/>cheers, Sam CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1143138792269985672006-03-23T13:33:00.000-05:002006-03-23T13:33:00.000-05:00The question of whether information is in "the eye...The question of whether information is in "the eye of the beholder" or not is a little bit subtle. The problem with defining complexity of an object as the length of the shortest description of that object is that it depends on what primitives you have. Turing machines have certain primitive operations (read a square, write a square, move left, move right, halt) and arithmetic has certain other primitives (add, multiply, increment, decrement, test for equality). The precise number you get for the complexity of some pattern depends on which set of primitives you choose.<BR/><BR/>Entropy is in a similar boat. The information-theoretic definition of entropy is this:<BR/><BR/><I>The entropy of macrostate S is proportional to the log of the number of microstates that produce the same macrostate.</I><BR/><BR/>So to measure entropy, you have to use some criterion for when two different microscopic states are "the same" macroscopically. This depends on which features of the macroscopic state you consider to be important. For a gas, the common parameters are: Total energy, volume, number of molecules, total momentum, total angular momentum, total charge, etc.<BR/><BR/>However, the interesting thing about information theory is that even though the precise value for information content is subjective (since it depends on a choice of primitives), in practice, it doesn't make much difference which primitives you choose. So in practice, information is approximately objective.Daryl McCulloughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04479156816952389332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142972144610871762006-03-21T15:15:00.000-05:002006-03-21T15:15:00.000-05:00Jeffrey, here is a “string” which I believe to be ...<I>Jeffrey, here is a “string” which I believe to be “information”, …….. what do you think?<BR/>100110100011100001000011</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not Jeffrey but I'll take a stab at it: yes, it's information -- a bit-string (to be pedantic: a conventional human-readable representation thereof). It contains exactly 48 bits of information (or maybe less, assuming some possible compression).<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe one of the following:</I><BR/>[examples deleted]<BR/><BR/>Here is where you go off the rails. You are no longer asking about "information" (as the term is used in info-theory), but about the <B>meaning</B> of the string. Meaning depends on a knowledge of context (memory address, CPU opcode, binary dump of text, etc....), and it's also (AFAIK) not formally, mathematically defined. (I would claim that meanings are largely culturally-dependent artefacts of human minds). Among other things, this implies that you cannot make statements about what random mutation can or cannot do to the "meaning" of a string -- since you haven't quantified the amount of "meaning" you had to start with, you've no basis for saying it's now more or less than it was (and it's even less obvious what the "meaning" of DNA is w.r.t. phenotype or fitness).<BR/><BR/>Let's be clear what the Creationist rhetoric is here: they are trying to use info-theory to pose a mathematically air-tight knock-down refutation of evolution. In so doing they invariably commit one of both of the following fallacies:<BR/><BR/>1) Getting the info-theory just plain <B>wrong</B> (as Pearcey does).<BR/>2) Equivocating between the formal definition of "information" and its natural-language usage, which is closer to "meaning".<BR/><BR/>They should be nailed to the wall hard and fast every single time they do this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142961106666248942006-03-21T12:11:00.000-05:002006-03-21T12:11:00.000-05:00No, information is not in the eye of the beholder....No, information is not in the eye of the beholder. It is completely rigorously defined. I'd suggest you start with the textbook of Li and Vitanyi.<BR/># posted by Jeffrey : 8:24 AM <BR/><BR/>“These are the kind of mistakes that could only be made by people completely unfamiliar with even the most basic aspects of information theory.”<BR/><BR/>Jeffrey, that includes me then because I know nothing of Li and Vitanyi.<BR/><BR/>But I know “information”, …. but only when I recognize it. (eye of the beholder thingy)<BR/><BR/>Now if I “stuck my nose in” and commented on a very specific, limited, exact “type of information” you were discussing, then I apologize for the interruption. <BR/><BR/>But my noting of “pre-posted words” such as “strings, “pile of leaves”, “DNA”, etc., I just assumed otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Jeffrey, here is a “string” which I believe to be “information”, …….. what do you think?<BR/><BR/>100110100011100001000011<BR/><BR/>Maybe one of the following:<BR/><BR/>A. just a string of 1’s and 0’s?<BR/>B. three (3) ASCII characters<BR/>C. A 16 bit address w/Base register link<BR/>D. A 24 bit RAM address<BR/>E. A 16 bit Load Accumulator Direct instruction <BR/>F. Sector/Track address for a data read Op<BR/><BR/>Jeffrey, iffen BC can say it, …….. why not me?<BR/><BR/>To wit:<BR/><BR/>“(Afterall, the sequence "ACGGCT" has no inherent usefulness unless you define the translation system and know the biology of the animal that will use(it) the resulting protein; a different translation system or different animal might render the sequence useless.)<BR/># posted by BC : 3:37 PM “ <BR/><BR/>cheersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142950059363041212006-03-21T09:07:00.000-05:002006-03-21T09:07:00.000-05:00"So I left the library, disillusioned. How could t..."So I left the library, disillusioned. How could the creationists be so wrong? Could they have allowed their personal religious beliefs to get in the way of their understanding? Or could they be deliberately misinforming the public to support their evangelical goals? No, the answer is clear: all the experts in information theory must be suppressing the truth."<BR/><BR/>Or, they could make an extraordinarily common mistake. Many people -- including scientists -- make the mistake that random equals purposeless. Kenneth Miller made this mistake in his Biology textbook until it was brought to his attention in 1995 at a meeting of the ASA. This brought about entertaining theater at Dover where the defendents' attorney tried to only refer to the ten-year-old edition and not the present corrected one. So, was Kenneth Miller suppressing the truth ten years ago? No, he just made a common error just like Pearcey.<BR/><BR/>Information theory can be very counterintuitive. For example, injecting noise into a bidirectional quantum channel increases its capacity. Or, for what we are discussing here the highest communication rate is produced by a random code (at least classically as this falls apart for quantum channels). <BR/><BR/>The counterintuitive nature of information theory can explain why a layman like Pearcey makes an error. When you have "experts" such as Dembsky making arguments that sound correct but are wrong it is no wonder that many people can be lead astray by it.<BR/><BR/>While I realize "teaching the controversy" was tongue in cheek, it would really be helpful here. Evolution as purposeless is a common misperception because so many people believe random equals purposeless. Information theory can help allay this misperception.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08488788114464113631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142914494224522942006-03-20T23:14:00.000-05:002006-03-20T23:14:00.000-05:00You are forgetting - when a creationist chooses a ...You are forgetting - when a creationist chooses a sequenece of random numbers he is guided by the supreme designer to choose the same sequence every time. This is known as "intelligent randomness".Tillermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00639738519386820997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142916738404303222006-03-20T23:52:00.000-05:002006-03-20T23:52:00.000-05:00That leads to "Sturgeon's Law", that "90% of every...That leads to "Sturgeon's Law", that "90% of everything is crud." Of course, there's a tale there. Briefly, Theodore Sturgeon at an SF conference listened to a literary critic pronounce that "90% of science fiction is crud." At the time for comments, Sturgeon responded, "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. But 90% of everything is crud."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142888101536446062006-03-20T15:55:00.000-05:002006-03-20T15:55:00.000-05:00What was [Pearcey's] publisher thinking??? They we...<I>What was [Pearcey's] publisher thinking??? </I><BR/><BR/>They were thinking: "Here's an apologetics book that will appeal to our target market, which is Evangelical Christians. So let's run with it". What makes you think the publisher knows any more about info-theory than the authors do? Or has the motivation to have the MS vetted by someone who does? All kinds of crap gets printed by religious publishing houses (and to be fair: by lots of non-religious publishers, too).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142877712962878072006-03-20T13:01:00.000-05:002006-03-20T13:01:00.000-05:00Re Colson:Being a charitable sort, I'm prepared to...Re Colson:<BR/>Being a charitable sort, I'm prepared to believe that people can make serious mistakes, and later admit their wrong, regret it, reform, and by changed conduct redeem themselves. I'm even willing to grant that religious conversion might sometimes play a role in such a reform.<BR/><BR/>However, having read some of Colson's output "Anno Domini", I say that he's still a liar. He's just lying for a different Commander In Chief is all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142877817355963392006-03-20T13:03:00.000-05:002006-03-20T13:03:00.000-05:00About Charles Colson...it's true that he was a cri...About Charles Colson...it's true that he was a criminal in his "former life", but he found Jesus while he was in jail and claims to have rehabilated himself. I guess the charitable thing to do is believe him; certainly he hasn't been arrested for anything since then. All of this is probably worth a mention.<BR/><BR/>But his radio program is more about Christian Evangelism than Information Theory. Not that there's anything wrong with that...if I were a publisher and Ms. Pearcy came to me with a book about Christian Evangelism, I'd look at her resume and agree that she had solid qualifications to write it.<BR/><BR/>But she doesn't seem to have any kind of background in Information Theory, and people who work in the field seem to agree that she doesn't understand it very well. What was her publisher thinking???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142863137076929862006-03-20T08:58:00.000-05:002006-03-20T08:58:00.000-05:00Dear "justasking7":Pardon me if I am suspicious of...Dear "justasking7":<BR/><BR/>Pardon me if I am suspicious of your motives, but it's my experience that people who label their contributions as "just asking" are invariably creationist trolls who wrongly believe they are springing some irrefutable argument.<BR/><BR/>First, let's clarify what you mean by "code". To a mathematician, a code is a set of words S such that any word that can be written as a product of words in S only has one such representation. In other words, there is unique decipherability. Thus the set {a, ab} is a code, but {a, ab, ba} is not, since aba can be factored as (ab)(a) or (a)(ba).<BR/><BR/>Given that, is DNA a code? No, because codes are sets of words, and DNA is a molecule. When we interpret DNA as a string of symbols, that is our interpretation. Maybe the proper way to think of DNA is something entirely different, let's say, something involving topology.<BR/><BR/>But let's be charitable and interpret the question as meaning, can we view DNA as a code? Still hard to say, because it is not completely clear what the set of words is. Under some interpretations, DNA might <I>not</I> be a code, because frame-shifts can result in different readings. <BR/><BR/>But maybe you didn't mean this formal definition. Maybe by "code" you meant "information described in one form translated to another". That's hardly a precise definition, but I'll try to answer your challenge.<BR/><BR/>I'd say many things in nature can be viewed as encoding information provided in a different form. For example, varves and polar ice cores could be viewed as encoding yearly climate variation. Decoding is accomplished simply by shining light on an extracted layer of fossil sediment or ice, respectively. <BR/><BR/>But even if there were no other non-biological examples of codes, so what? There aren't any non-biological examples of turds, either, but that doesn't mean whenever I see a turd, I think "that was intelligently designed". Why do you think your question was relevant to my posting?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142853259018021262006-03-20T06:14:00.000-05:002006-03-20T06:14:00.000-05:00On the subject of 'ad-hominem attacks' - the ID cr...On the subject of 'ad-hominem attacks' - the ID crowd lose no sleep over calling refering to Dawkins as an 'Atheist' which I understand is meant as an attack on his credibility in the US.<BR/>This has no bearing on the weight of any scientific argument that he advances of course - and as ID has nothing to do with religion is completely irrelevant to the case.<BR/><BR/>Pointing out that someone has been found to be a liar and a perjurer in court is a useful factual piece of information when making a judgement of the credibility of an author. If someone plays fast and loose with their own credibility and gets found out, surely it's overstretching the principle of fair play to ignore the fact.<BR/><BR/>Judge Jones made some choice comments about Buckingham and others and their propensity to lie for their faith - does pointing out this fact constitute an 'ad hominem' attack on Buckingham, or is it merely restating the record?<BR/><BR/><I>A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces <B>irrelevant</B> personal premisses about his opponent.</I><BR/><BR/>I think that someone has been shown to be untruthful in court is not irrelevant in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142836127111300362006-03-20T01:28:00.000-05:002006-03-20T01:28:00.000-05:00This isn't a dustup over issues in science. If it ...This isn't a dustup over issues in science. If it were, the discussion over the things creationists (Paleyists, scientific creationists, creation scientists, cdesign proponentsists, ID advocates, "teach the controversy" advocates, etc.) bring up would be recognized as having been addressed long, long ago, and the discussion would now be about other things.<BR/><BR/>But what is going on is a socio-political fight, as anti-science forces (the ones who use political processes to alter the definition of science, among other things) seek to get what they want, but can't establish via the mechanisms of science. As such, yeah, character is definitely something that deserves examination. I thought there was an issue of character over the falsehoods piled upon falsehoods in Henry Morris's "The Scientific Case for Creation". Others deserve to know about it, and not have it covered up by folks who claim that such is irrelevant to a discussion about the science. This isn't a discussion about the science; this is a discussion about the people who can't deal with the science and are out to cripple it by any means available.<BR/><BR/>So, for those who think that I, or others who work for the integrity of science education, should be muzzled concerning all the relevant information about the socio-political threats to science education, well, all I can say is that I'm not buying it, and I will continue to address both the content of the arguments (so far as there is content there), and also the issues of character that are surely relevant to understanding the complete picture.<BR/><BR/>Wesley R. ElsberryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142805500091381102006-03-19T16:58:00.000-05:002006-03-19T16:58:00.000-05:00John said ..." "Surely this isn't the "scientific"...John said ...<BR/><BR/>" "Surely this isn't the "scientific" approach of "relevant and accurate data"?? :-)"<BR/><BR/>"If you can't attack the post, attack the author."<BR/><BR/>Well, this strikes me as somewhat odd, John. First, it was a closing comment with a smiley on it. Second, it "attacks" the "approach" and not the author. And third, if we really want to take my "criticism" seriously for a moment, 5 seconds to google "watergate burglars" tells you that there were 5 ... none of them Colson. Sloppy research, I say!! :-) <BR/><BR/>My point to start with was simply that I did not understand, given that all the facts and all the evidence are on your side of the "debate," why drag in "character" comments? I still don't understand ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142801022921631402006-03-19T15:43:00.000-05:002006-03-19T15:43:00.000-05:00While you are correct about what the creationists ...<I>While you are correct about what the creationists are doing, correcting the way they use 'information' is part of the solution. If laypeople wish to hold forth on a subject with scientists they must learn to give up their own 'laylanguage' and use the rigorously defined terms the scientists use.</I><BR/><BR/>The word "information" (meaning useful/meaningful information) may not be well defined or measurable, but it is still a valid concept. Both definitions are important. I don't think the solution is to get people to give up the non-scientific definition of the word. The non-scientific version of the word captures some concept that is not captured by the scientific version.<BR/><BR/>Let me put it this way: let's say that you find a book with all kinds of useful first-aid information. You read it and say, "gee, there's all this useful information about cleaning wounds, making a splint for broken bones..." You think, "Someone smart must've written this book because it's highly unlikely that random letters would form such useful information." Someone responds, "Well, my random letter generator creates information! A random generator is the very definition of an information generator! Information is a meansurable quantity that is related to the compressibility of the information." Of course, you would probably just roll your eyes because your definition of information (meaning the useful information contained in the book) isn't likely to be generated by a random letter generator. You know this no matter how hard someone tries to tell you about Shannon information theory and all that. You simply know that someone must've written the book -- despite all this talk about random letter generators and the creation of information.<BR/><BR/>I think it's similar to what some evolutionists are trying to do here. They're trying to convince people about this scientific definition of "information" which is not quite the same as the concept of useful information -- as if the information contained in a first-aid book is no different than the information created by a random letter generator. The solution is not to convince people to accept some new definition of information and throw out the old one. The fact of the matter is that evolution is quite capable of producing exactly the kind of information that the layperson is talking about (i.e. useful information). If you go the other direction and try to convince them to accept the scientific version of the word, they might very well realize that they're losing some important concept embodied in the idea of "useful information" versus "information". They might even think that evolutionists are doing some symantic slight-of-hand, reinforcing the whole ignorant "evolutionists are playing deceptive games" crap that gets so much play in creationist circles.<BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter is that evolution creates information (information in the sense that the layperson uses the word). That's the fact that has to be driven into the minds of the creationists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1142800628203824372006-03-19T15:37:00.000-05:002006-03-19T15:37:00.000-05:00If you want to write out a series of nonsense syll...<I> If you want to write out a series of nonsense syllables, you need only two instructions: 1) "Select at random a letter of the English alphabet (or a space) and write it down," and 2) "Do it again." </I><BR/><BR/>So the string "bvc rd fgr jha" is composed of nonsense syllables? I don't think so. Those instructions are a bit too simple to produce the desired effect. You need to specify combining vowels and consonants if you want actual <B>syllables</B>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com