Evolution has never been observed

[Mr Skeptic]

It might help if you'd answer a fundamental question.

Can you mathematically and rigorously define "functional information" for us?

 

He won't, otherwise he can't change it at his whim to fit his argument.

[cypress]

In information theory, Information is measured in terms of the alternatives the specific eliminates therefore I = -logP When the information is syntactic and expressed as character strings in an encoded systems, a_i being a character in the applicable alphabet of n characters, I(a_i) = -log₂p_i, then entropy S = ∑p_iI(a_i). Thus entropy is maximal when all probabilities are identical.

 

He won't, otherwise he can't change it at his whim to fit his argument.

 

 

I answered that question several days ago.

[Mr Skeptic]

If it is irrelevant why is it being discussed? Does not compute.

 

Because people who don't believe in evolution sometimes take a theory that says randomly generated bits can't be informative communication and take it to mean that evolution can't happen.

 

In information theory, Information is measured in terms of the alternatives the specific eliminates therefore I = -logP When the information is syntactic and expressed as character strings in an encoded systems, a_i being a character in the applicable alphabet of n characters, I(a_i) = -log₂p_i, then entropy S = ∑p_iI(a_i). Thus entropy is maximal when all probabilities are identical.

 

 

 

 

I answered that question several days ago.

 

Oh, so that little "functional" bit that you like to tack on whenever we make points about information that you don't like, is actually irrelevant? (Or rather, "functional" means whatever you want it to mean because in your description you define "functional" as things you consider "functional", without actually defining what that means).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed. Could you mathematically define "functional information", cypress? You stated,

 

Functional information is a description that when interpreted and processed as intended, the outcome is a functional system.

 

This leaves many unanswered questions, such as "what kind of processing are we talking about?", "whose intention do you mean?", "what constitutes 'functional'?", and "can it be a functional system that performs a different function than intended?"

 

This is why information theorists use mathematical descriptions.

[Incendia]

Cypress...It is irrelevant...You have wasted several pages of this topic with this irrelevant discussion. Stop discussing it further. It is neither relevant to the topic or evolution.

 

Make a new topic if you wish to discuss info' entropy further.

Edited November 26, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[cypress]

If it is irrelevant why is it being discussed? Does not compute.

 

It is being discussed because it is relevant since all natural processes in this universe are subject to laws of physics. Evolution as framed as a natural process and thus is subject to laws including the law of entropy. The law of entropy set the direction of change in order of any kind for systems that are subjected to processes involving random action. The direction is from order to disorder, from states of low probability to higher probability. Chemical and thermodynamic systems are driven in part by Brownian motion and are thus subject to the constraints placed on them by entropy and probability considerations Many proponents of evolutionary theory prefer to ignore or at least downplay the law of entropy when considering the chemic reality of processes prescribed by the theory.

 

The theory states that all observed diversity is a result of evolutionary processes, but diversity in a biological sense requires new functional systems and new functional systems require massive amounts of coherent ordered chemical polymers and an information blueprint of how to make them, and manage them in order to support biological activity. Evolutionists have no scientific explanation for how molecular and information entropy was reduced to support the chemical patterns and stored information found in biological systems.

 

Indeed. Could you mathematically define "functional information", cypress? You stated,

 

 

 

This leaves many unanswered questions, such as "what kind of processing are we talking about?", "whose intention do you mean?", "what constitutes 'functional'?", and "can it be a functional system that performs a different function than intended?"

 

This is why information theorists use mathematical descriptions.

 

There are many kinds of information but regardless of the kind, information is measured as previously described. Functional information can be processed in a variety of ways. In a computerized milling machine the functional information is an instruction set that causes the milling machine to execute functions that shape the material as intended or defined by the prescribed function set. Intent is thus a descriptor I chose to indicate correspondence to a specific function.

 

This is why information theorists use mathematical descriptions.

 

 

Math, physics, and indeed many scientific text books include text and formulas to explain a concept. In a forum setting, I feel text is more effective.

[Incendia]

Evolution is not a 'thing' subject to laws. It is the build up of genetic mutation leading to the rise of new species from old ones. Therefore physics does not apply as there is nothing for it to apply onto. Evolution is like a law of physics applying to nature. Except it isn't physics. A law of nature.

Edited November 26, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[Mr Skeptic]

Plain old entropy is irrelevant to evolution (as described by most creationists anyways) because there are many common examples of things that decrease in entropy, for example, plants. Entropy in one system can be decreased at the cost of increasing entropy in another system, but our sun provides the required energy.

 

As for "information entropy", it relates to communication. Take for example, a message you know to be randomly generated which says: "The largest elephant ever recorded weighed about 24,000 lb". Now, what does this message tell you? The answer is: nothing! No, it does not tell you anything about elephants, in particular nothing about the weight of the largest elephant. Why? It is a randomly generated message, that's why. Sure, the message seemed like a meaningful and informative sentence, but on occasion randomly generated messages would. But you cannot trust anything stated in a randomly generated message, because it could easily have said anything else, for example oz instead of lb. More likely of course it would have just been gibberish, but even when it does not look like gibberish a randomly generated message is still gibberish.

 

But what if you are not talking about communication? Consider, can a randomly generated string of bits be a prime number? Yes. Can it be alliteration? Yes. Can it be a metaphor? Yes. Can it be a string of bits that correspond to a series of sequences of amino acids that when taken as a whole can self-replicate? Of course. These things it can be, but it can't be an informative message. Therefore, creationists will use a theory about communication to talk about DNA.

 

Basically, if you are talking about a property that a string of bits may or may not have, a randomly generated one can, with the odds of it having it depending on the proportion of strings with that property compared to the total number of strings possible, and some details of the random generator (eg if it uses random words instead of random letters, it drastically increases the odds of making sentences at the cost of needing some initial information). But if you are talking about communication, it is a different story because randomness doesn't communicate anything, even if it seems to. But if the property is intrinsic to the string of data itself, it could obviously be generated as a result of a random process.

[cypress]

Evolution is not a 'thing' subject to laws. It is the build up of genetic mutation leading to the rise of new species from old ones. Therefore physics does not apply as there is nothing for it to apply onto. Evolution is like a law of physics applying to nature. Except it isn't physics. A law of nature.

 

Spectacularly wrong. Evolutionary theory posits a set of processes that supposedly operate in accordance with Methodological Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism only considers processes that conform with known and understood physical laws. Thus evolutionary processes are subject to laws of physics including probability and entropy.

 

Entropy is a measure of overall order. It applies to any kind of order. In thermodynamics it applies to the order found in discrete sets of energy microstates. In molecular systems it applies to the order found in molecular positioning and in information it is the order represented by the discrete syntactical representation of the information.

 

Can anyone offer an actualized example of order in this universe under influence of random processes that is not subject to the laws of probability and entropy?

[swansont]

Evolution is not a 'thing' subject to laws. It is the build up of genetic mutation leading to the rise of new species from old ones. Therefore physics does not apply as there is nothing for it to apply onto. Evolution is like a law of physics applying to nature. Except it isn't physics. A law of nature.

 

It's both, actually. A theory that is subject to and follows other applicable physical laws, just like all other theories.

[Incendia]

I'm not convinced by your argument against mine and as Mr Skeptic said info' entropy is for communication. Not for other things.[You have a bad reputation...i'm not believing you before someone trustworthy confirms you are right.]

 

Your conversation is still irrelevant...Cease discussion please. Create a new thread for your argument against evolution.

 

ack, you posted before me. Still...I don't see how a theory that simply says eventually genetic mutation and adaptation and natural selection and the death of the unlucky individuals leads to new species over great expanses of time is subject to to laws of physics. The only way a law of physics could prevent evolution is to prevent mutation. And we know that happens. [There evolution true.]

Edited November 26, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There are many kinds of information but regardless of the kind, information is measured as previously described. Functional information can be processed in a variety of ways. In a computerized milling machine the functional information is an instruction set that causes the milling machine to execute functions that shape the material as intended or defined by the prescribed function set. Intent is thus a descriptor I chose to indicate correspondence to a specific function.

Right, but that doesn't answer the question. Suppose, perhaps, I have milling machine instructions that can also function as rather excellent poetry, or descriptive text that also functions as the key to an encryption algorithm. The amount of "functional" information is different depending on the purpose for which I use the information; for example, some of the milling machine instructions might make terrible poetry, but a large chunk in the middle has won several awards from literary journals.

 

You'll have to adequately define functional information if you want to argue about how it can be increased or decreased.

 

Math, physics, and indeed many scientific text books include text and formulas to explain a concept. In a forum setting, I feel text is more effective.

Given the vagueness of your definition, I'd suggest a formula. Could you perhaps try?

[Mr Skeptic]

There are many kinds of information but regardless of the kind, information is measured as previously described. Functional information can be processed in a variety of ways. In a computerized milling machine the functional information is an instruction set that causes the milling machine to execute functions that shape the material as intended or defined by the prescribed function set. Intent is thus a descriptor I chose to indicate correspondence to a specific function.

 

Correct. Random processes do not generate intent. Fortunately, intent is not needed for things to function. Things work as they do regardless of, and quite frequently in spite of, the intent of the process that created them (as all computer programmers soon find out). Given that intent is irrelevant to functioning, why do you bring it up when talking about function? Is it because randomness does not have intent, and so you're trying to define functionality in such a way that by definition excludes randomly generated things? Yet things can have unintended functions, and they are nevertheless functions. For example, the Aspirin pill was not designed to treat heart problems, but that is one of its functions and is now used for that in addition to its original function as pain medication. Does that mean the Aspirin pill does not function to reduce the risk of heart attacks, because that was not the intent when it was created?

[Incendia]

... obviously not... I edited my post...I advise you re-read it...

[swansont]

I dodged that question several days ago.

FTFY

 

I think the request carried an implied "in a meaningful way," i.e. without circular logic, such as using "intent" in the definition.

[Incendia]

What? Why did you post that?

You haven't quoted anyone here...unless you quoted your own actual speech words.

[cypress]

Information entropy applies to information of all kinds and wherever it exists. It is not limited to communication and it is not limited to the very high entropy random strings skeptic prefers to discuss. It also includes low entropy information including the functional information contained within DNA, software programs and instruction manuals. Cosmological studies include a rich discussion of information and information entropy.

 

In the context of this thread the primary consideration is changes to entropy when considering the entire system including inputs and outputs. Skeptic waxes on about generation of random strings of high entropy information but avoids a descriptive analysis of how a system of mater actually does decrease the information entropy to eventually contain the low entropy information contained in functional DNA based systems. He has no validated explanation for the source of this order.

[Incendia]

...but DNA isn't information cypress...DNA is a molecule...just like all the other molecules...unique only in the fact that it replicates and adapts.

 

Your argument is still irrelevant to the discussion. This topic is not fore evolution but for the thing in the first post...just like in all the other topics.

 

If you want to discuss info' entropy and evolution make a new topic.

[cypress]

I have never seen proper demonstration that function does not require intent in the sense Skeptic suggests. Since it is unknown if the entire universe has a materialistic cause or designed , it seems impossible at this point to demonstrate things and processes we call natural function without intent.

[swansont]

I have never seen proper demonstration that function does not require intent in the sense Skeptic suggests. Since it is unknown if the entire universe has a materialistic cause or designed , it seems impossible at this point to demonstrate things and processes we call natural function without intent.

 

That would just be appeal to ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.

[cypress]

...but DNA isn't information cypress...DNA is a molecule...just like all the other molecules...unique only in the fact that it replicates and adapts.

 

Your argument is still irrelevant to the discussion. This topic is not fore evolution but for the thing in the first post...just like in all the other topics.

 

If you want to discuss info' entropy and evolution make a new topic.

 

DNA are molecules that contain information. The information is is transcribed, transmitted and then processed to generate functional systems and manage and control cell processes. The reality that biological systems contain low entropy information encoded into a high entropy carrier and then use that information to replicate, to build and to manage cell function is very relevant to evolutionary theory because the theory posits that all biological life and the systems contained in biological organisms is a result of evolutionary processes. The proponents of evolutionary theory have yet to demonstrate how this very low entropy information was generated in the first place and how new additional low entropy information required to allow for diversity was derived without an original source of low entropy information. this is just one of the ways to demonstrate that evolutionary theory has not been confirmed, because by its posit it must conform to physical law including the requirement that at the system level, including inputs and outputs all forms of net order does not increase.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have never seen proper demonstration that function does not require intent in the sense Skeptic suggests. Since it is unknown if the entire universe has a materialistic cause or designed , it seems impossible at this point to demonstrate things and processes we call natural function without intent.

I'm sure we've all used objects for a dramatically different function than their original designer's intent. Similarly, I can use information to perform a function significantly different from its original purpose.

 

For example, for making poetry.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46413-computer-generated-poetry/

[cypress]

That would just be appeal to ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.

 

Skeptic made the claim that function does not require intent, and I responded that his statement has not been established. It is his burden to prove. When the cause of functional systems is established, we find intentioned design, thus it is reasonable to conclude that function requires intent until it is shown otherwise.

[Incendia]

DNA are molecules that contain information. The information is is transcribed, transmitted and then processed to generate functional systems and manage and control cell processes. The reality that biological systems contain low entropy information encoded into a high entropy carrier and then use that information to replicate, to build and to manage cell function is very relevant to evolutionary theory because the theory posits that all biological life and the systems contained in biological organisms is a result of evolutionary processes. The proponents of evolutionary theory have yet to demonstrate how this very low entropy information was generated in the first place and how new additional low entropy information required to allow for diversity was derived without an original source of low entropy information. this is just one of the ways to demonstrate that evolutionary theory has not been confirmed, because by its posit it must conform to physical law including the requirement that at the system level, including inputs and outputs all forms of net order does not increase.

 

Don't write[or speak or think] nonsense. DNA do not contain any information. That are simply molecules. Like an other. They do not use information to replicate. The replicate because they react with other chemicals. If it reacts with the right chemicals it replicates.

Life happened...then mutated then adapted then evolved and so on and so on until time=now and you are now reading this.

 

...why do the rules tell me not to shout at you for using religion?

Edited November 26, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[cypress]

I'm sure we've all used objects for a dramatically different function than their original designer's intent. Similarly, I can use information to perform a function significantly different from its original purpose.

 

For example, for making poetry.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/46413-computer-generated-poetry/

 

I don't see any way one could demonstrate that the output of that program was not intentionally designed. Are you attempting to change the definition to fit your intentions?

 

I also don't see any way these false arguments help improve the case for evolutionary theory. The theory is in crisis because it does not conform with what it posits. It posits that the processes conform to methodological naturalism but the advocates cannot show how it obtains the molecular and informational order required to conform with entropy laws. It posits that natural selection drives a continual pathway of thousands upon thousands of stepwise changes but no pathway greater than 3 steps has been identified.