RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (324) < ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,08:27   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15)
Poor Joe is attention starved.

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html

When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies

 
Quote
Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:


But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy.

then we have

 
Quote
And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...


Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done!

Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one

http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them.

My blog's stat page counter says 200 visits per day.

Over 4,000 last month.

Go figure...

But Joe,

2000 of those hits are Richard, and 2000 are your mommy.

Yeah, cheap shot, but it's not like there's any science to discuss.

Joe, you want to lay out that algorithm?

Hey Joe, let me ask you.  If put a copy of a dictionary file on my computer and it takes up 2 megabytes... so you're saying that I can put a second copy of the dictionary on my computer and it won't take up any more space?  I could put a million copies of the dictionary on my computer in that 2 megabytes... damn ID is useful for something.

Joe, you're confused again.  I understand, it's OK.  Learning helps with that... also, I'm given to understand, 28 shots of tequila in less than 1 hour... but I don't drink.

You are switching between definitions of information (again!).  You are using a great tactic... unless everyone knows you are using it.  You just switch between definitions that don't mean your statement is rebuted.  

In terms of meaningful information about the English language, you're right, two copies of the dictionary have the smae information.  But if you're talking Shannon, then you have to transmit BOTH copies and that takes more time.  If you're talking Kolmogorov information, then it will take slightly more information to specify BOTH copies rather than one copy of the information in the dictionary.

Of course, neither really apply to what you want, which is the informational content in DNA, because, I'm sorry (and I think the actual Biologists will agree), you don't know jack about Biology.

I know, you aren't swayed.  I don't care.  You're not even interesting.  At least in discussion with that idiot Richard Kepler, I'm having to learn new things.  

The stuff you've been regurgitating has been torn apart for 5-10 years.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,08:47   

> "Hi, Thanks for calling bank of JoeMerica - how can I be of service?"

* "I'd like my account balance please"

> "Of course, you have one dollar"

* "What? I have more than that!""

> "If you have two copies of the same thing you do not have more information than if you just had one"

* "You're a Tard".

> "Thanks for using bank of JoeMerica. Remember we also have super-safe sperm bank services and are now accepting deposits 'round the back"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,08:55   

Joe knows more about biology than biologists.  
Joe knows more about genetics than geneticists.
Joe knows more about information than information scientists.
He doesn't need to learn about biology, genetics, or information to know about them.
IOW Shut up!

Actually, an interesting question does emerges from reading Joe's ravings, namely: why does he think he has so obviously refuted standard science?

From what I can tell, Joe holds that any explanation that doesn't include a complete repetition of the origin of life with all the steps explained completely is worthless.  And anybody who doesn't "understand" that is an idiot.  It's a version of the argument that each knew understanding creates two new gaps, but with added profanity and bluster.  However, it saves him the trouble of actually having to know what he's talking about, or of speaking to others in a civilized fashion.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,09:12   

The code for my safe is as follows:

Count the number of identical dictionaries in my office.

That number is the code for my safe.

Take that number and treat the first digit as the number of turns to the left, the second the number to the right, the third to the left and so on.

According to Joe the code for my safe is: 1

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,09:14   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,08:55)
Joe knows more about biology than biologists.  
Joe knows more about genetics than geneticists.
Joe knows more about information than information scientists.
He doesn't need to learn about biology, genetics, or information to know about them.
IOW Shut up!

Actually, an interesting question does emerges from reading Joe's ravings, namely: why does he think he has so obviously refuted standard science?

From what I can tell, Joe holds that any explanation that doesn't include a complete repetition of the origin of life with all the steps explained completely is worthless.  And anybody who doesn't "understand" that is an idiot.  It's a version of the argument that each knew understanding creates two new gaps, but with added profanity and bluster.  However, it saves him the trouble of actually having to know what he's talking about, or of speaking to others in a civilized fashion.

don't forget that his pet explanation is so good that he doesn't need to show any of that himself.

IOW: It should be obvious to anyone not blinded by science.

Thomas Dolby: She Blinded Me with Science

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,09:29   

Hey Joe, I have a challenge for you.  Could you write a reasonable explanation, in your own words and without name-calling, of why you think ID is a good scientific explanation of life?  If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life.  Can you do this without invective?  Here's your chance!

Don't just tell people to watch The Privileged Planet: make the argument yourself.  Imagine that your reader has no access to a library.  You have access (you can cite all you want), but it's up to you to present the argument.  It might help to imagine that your reader is not stupid, is capable of following scientific argument, and is somebody you respect (say, a teenage relative, a nephew or niece).  

Deal?  This should be easy.  After all, I am just "an English professor who doesn't understand English" (in your words).  You are the mighty Joe G!

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,09:56   

A brilliant suggestion, O Hermagoras!  But it might make Joey feel a little more secure if you wrote yours in Elizabethan Modern English for that King James Version feel of things.  (Attempting to put it all in iambic pentameter would be silly.  Cool, but silly.)


:D


Alas, given that his likely response to your efforts would be to claim it insufficient without actually reading for comprehension, this would be a waste of bandwidth and time.  :(   Not every student can be taught...


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,10:08   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,15:29)
Hey Joe, I have a challenge for you.  Could you write a reasonable explanation, in your own words and without name-calling, of why you think ID is a good scientific explanation of life?  If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life.  Can you do this without invective?  Here's your chance!

Don't just tell people to watch The Privileged Planet: make the argument yourself.  Imagine that your reader has no access to a library.  You have access (you can cite all you want), but it's up to you to present the argument.  It might help to imagine that your reader is not stupid, is capable of following scientific argument, and is somebody you respect (say, a teenage relative, a nephew or niece).  

Deal?  This should be easy.  After all, I am just "an English professor who doesn't understand English" (in your words).  You are the mighty Joe G!

Seconded as a great suggestion.

However Uncle Louis' Turf Accountancy has just opened in its usual place and will be accepting bets. Odds to be decided when JoeJoe's next response is in.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,10:21   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2010,10:08)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,15:29)
Hey Joe, I have a challenge for you.  Could you write a reasonable explanation, in your own words and without name-calling, of why you think ID is a good scientific explanation of life?  If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life.  Can you do this without invective?  Here's your chance!

Don't just tell people to watch The Privileged Planet: make the argument yourself.  Imagine that your reader has no access to a library.  You have access (you can cite all you want), but it's up to you to present the argument.  It might help to imagine that your reader is not stupid, is capable of following scientific argument, and is somebody you respect (say, a teenage relative, a nephew or niece).  

Deal?  This should be easy.  After all, I am just "an English professor who doesn't understand English" (in your words).  You are the mighty Joe G!

Seconded as a great suggestion.

However Uncle Louis' Turf Accountancy has just opened in its usual place and will be accepting bets. Odds to be decided when JoeJoe's next response is in.

Louis

Bets are only for when the result is an unknown.  The chances of JoeG actually doing something like that are significantly less than zero.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,10:50   

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 30 2010,00:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 29 2010,20:21)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,20:49)
He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all.

Not to mention the specification part.
   
Quote
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

Randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures "specified" information?

Just to make it funnier when Joey comes back around and ignores this death-stroke to his theory, I'll put another copy up.  I do apologize, Bill; this probably makes you a double child molester.

D'oh!  I'm sure it's an oversight, but you forgot to address this death stroke to your theory.  It was reasonably laid out and used an example (that probably threw you).  This would be a good time to show a counter-example (or even a first one...).  Otherwise it looks like you don't know what you're talking about--surely not the case.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,11:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 01 2010,16:21)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2010,10:08)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,15:29)
Hey Joe, I have a challenge for you.  Could you write a reasonable explanation, in your own words and without name-calling, of why you think ID is a good scientific explanation of life?  If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life.  Can you do this without invective?  Here's your chance!

Don't just tell people to watch The Privileged Planet: make the argument yourself.  Imagine that your reader has no access to a library.  You have access (you can cite all you want), but it's up to you to present the argument.  It might help to imagine that your reader is not stupid, is capable of following scientific argument, and is somebody you respect (say, a teenage relative, a nephew or niece).  

Deal?  This should be easy.  After all, I am just "an English professor who doesn't understand English" (in your words).  You are the mighty Joe G!

Seconded as a great suggestion.

However Uncle Louis' Turf Accountancy has just opened in its usual place and will be accepting bets. Odds to be decided when JoeJoe's next response is in.

Louis

Bets are only for when the result is an unknown.  The chances of JoeG actually doing something like that are significantly less than zero.

Sounds like we have a potential punter. It's okay, Uncle Louis doesn't make you bet, but he does mysteriously have to be out of town come pay out time.

That said, we all know JoeJoe lacks the...how shall I put this...balls, brains or 'bility to do what Herm has suggested, so you're probably right.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,11:22   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2010,11:12)
{snip}

That said, we all know JoeJoe lacks the...how shall I put this...balls, brains or 'bility to do what Herm has suggested, so you're probably right.

Louis

You mean that besides the 3 Rs, Joe also lacks the 3 Bs?  No wonder he can't calculate the CSI of an aaRdvaRk or a BaseBall.

I'm sorry, Joe, I wasn't aware that you had a learning disability.  I'll try to be more understanding in the future.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,13:53   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 01 2010,11:50)
   
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 30 2010,00:53)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 29 2010,20:21)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,20:49)
He seems to not understand the compression/Shannon part at all.

Not to mention the specification part.
       
Quote
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

Randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures "specified" information?

Just to make it funnier when Joey comes back around and ignores this death-stroke to his theory, I'll put another copy up.  I do apologize, Bill; this probably makes you a double child molester.

D'oh!  I'm sure it's an oversight, but you forgot to address this death stroke to your theory.  It was reasonably laid out and used an example (that probably threw you).  This would be a good time to show a counter-example (or even a first one...).  Otherwise it looks like you don't know what you're talking about--surely not the case.

Let's do it backward.

Start with the randomized sequence of nucleotides that does nothing and specifies nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count 'em up and multiply by 2 to arrive at Joe's measure of the minimum specified information contained therein.

Now bring in your designer of choice - supernatural, extraterrestrial, human, whatever. Have your designer carefully tweeze thousands of entries in this nucleotide sequence such that it specifies a wonderfully complex metabolic pathway capable of minimal function, viability, and specific effects.

Count 'em up and multiply by 2 to arrive at - well, to arrive at exactly the same number.

Hey Joe, given that the careful actions of the designer don't change this value a whit, in what way is the specification introduced by the designer reflected in that number?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10758
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,14:22   

New Tard from Joe:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....le.html

Ironically, little information about information.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,15:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2010,14:22)
New Tard from Joe:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....le.html

Ironically, little information about information.

Quote
They do not seem to understand that information has a normal use in the real world. They do not seem to understand that without this normally used version of information the world would basically shut down.


Joe, unfortunately, failed to provide a definition or example of what this normal use is.  So, how about it, Joe?  Would you care to provide a rigorous definition of "information" as you use it?  Or, you have a nice dodge--you could address Bill's death stroke to your CSI methodology.

Of course, you'll do neither and then declare victory.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,15:59   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 01 2010,15:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2010,14:22)
New Tard from Joe:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....le.html

Ironically, little information about information.

Quote
They do not seem to understand that information has a normal use in the real world. They do not seem to understand that without this normally used version of information the world would basically shut down.


Joe, unfortunately, failed to provide a definition or example of what this normal use is.  So, how about it, Joe?  Would you care to provide a rigorous definition of "information" as you use it?  Or, you have a nice dodge--you could address Bill's death stroke to your CSI methodology.

Of course, you'll do neither and then declare victory.

The problem with these scientists is that they keep coming up with special terms for things.  It's like they have their own jargon or something!

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4819
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,16:54   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

The bit about being wed to Shannon is a swing and a miss. In critiquing Dembski, we made extensive use of Algorithmic Information Theory.

OK, Joe, now take your claim to the world of biology: Do you expect a parent species and its tetraploid daughter species whose genome is simply copied twice to be morphologically indistinguishable? Doesn't your stance on the information content of copies demand that conclusion?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2010,17:19   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,21:59)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 01 2010,15:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 01 2010,14:22)
New Tard from Joe:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....le.html

Ironically, little information about information.

 
Quote
They do not seem to understand that information has a normal use in the real world. They do not seem to understand that without this normally used version of information the world would basically shut down.


Joe, unfortunately, failed to provide a definition or example of what this normal use is.  So, how about it, Joe?  Would you care to provide a rigorous definition of "information" as you use it?  Or, you have a nice dodge--you could address Bill's death stroke to your CSI methodology.

Of course, you'll do neither and then declare victory.

The problem with these scientists is that they keep coming up with special terms for things.  It's like they have their own jargon or something!

Did JoeJoe just make an appeal to common prejudice and nebulous, goalpost shifting definitions? Fuck me deftly, he's dumber than I thought.

And I thought he was dumb.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,16:50   

Well, Joe G claims he has already met my challenge.  I'll read it and see.  But I'm not going to let him bait me.  My challenge was not a bait but a good-faith effort, and I'm not going to let him drag me into the mud.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Henry J



Posts: 4592
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,17:13   

Quote
Did JoeJoe just make an appeal to common prejudice and nebulous, goalpost shifting definitions?

I don't see any appeal in his comments. :p

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,17:28   

Hermagoras,

Reasoning with Joe is a waste of time.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,18:37   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 02 2010,17:50)
Well, Joe G claims he has already met my challenge.  I'll read it and see.  But I'm not going to let him bait me.  My challenge was not a bait but a good-faith effort, and I'm not going to let him drag me into the mud.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

- George Bernard Shaw

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,18:53   

Quoth Little Joey, in response to something I said in his general direction:

Quote
Nice projection...


Truly, sirrah, you have a dizzying intellect.

This is your 'A' game, I take it?


The MadPanda, FCD

  
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,18:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2010,16:54)
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

The bit about being wed to Shannon is a swing and a miss. In critiquing Dembski, we made extensive use of Algorithmic Information Theory.

OK, Joe, now take your claim to the world of biology: Do you expect a parent species and its tetraploid daughter species whose genome is simply copied twice to be morphologically indistinguishable? Doesn't your stance on the information content of copies demand that conclusion?

Algorithmic Information Theory - nope that doesn't do it either. Complexity measures do not deal with meaning/ function.

ASs for polyploidy- any new body parts, new body plans or new protein machinery?

Or are things just a little bigger well because there is more stuff in the package?

IOW Wes just make your point.

Ya see my stance would say there are not two times the body parts, two bodies and twice the protein machinery.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2037
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:01   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2010,17:28)
Hermagoras,

Reasoning with Joe is a waste of time.

You can't be reasonable.

That's the problem right there.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:04   

Oh, I am able to reason. You can't comprehend.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:20   

Joe G:
         
Quote
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures specified information?

Now do it backward:

Start with the randomized sequence of nucleotides. Bring in your designer of choice - supernatural, extraterrestrial, human, whatever. Have your designer carefully tweeze thousands of entries in this nucleotide sequence such that it specifies a wonderfully complex metabolic pathway capable of minimal function, viability, and specific effects.

Count 'em up and multiply by 2 to arrive at - well, to arrive at exactly the same number.

So, Joe, given that neither the careful actions of the designer nor randomization of those actions change your value by jot or tittle, in what way is specification reflected in your calculation?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:25   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 02 2010,17:28)
Hermagoras,

Reasoning with Joe is a waste of time.

So it seems, Oleg.  

Of course, like most of us here, I have sometimes mocked Joe, and in that sense have not always been civil.  But my patience has worn thin: he was the one, some years ago, to go all ad hominem and be aggressive even to the point of threatening to show up at my place of work. Nobody else in years of conversing on the internet has raised the issue of settling a dispute by physical confrontation or pointed out how easy it would be to confront me in person.  

Given that history, it was naive to extend the latest olive branch.  A weakness of my faith in humanity, which Joe seems not to share.

[Lightly edited for style and clarity]

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:51   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 02 2010,18:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2010,16:54)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:20)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

No Wes, if you have two copies of the same dictionary you do not have more information than if you just had one.

Ya see Wes the information is the same in both.

Your problem is you are wed to Shannon's version of information which isn't information at all.

The bit about being wed to Shannon is a swing and a miss. In critiquing Dembski, we made extensive use of Algorithmic Information Theory.

OK, Joe, now take your claim to the world of biology: Do you expect a parent species and its tetraploid daughter species whose genome is simply copied twice to be morphologically indistinguishable? Doesn't your stance on the information content of copies demand that conclusion?

Algorithmic Information Theory - nope that doesn't do it either. Complexity measures do not deal with meaning/ function.

ASs for polyploidy- any new body parts, new body plans or new protein machinery?

Or are things just a little bigger well because there is more stuff in the package?

IOW Wes just make your point.

Ya see my stance would say there are not two times the body parts, two bodies and twice the protein machinery.

So, rectal itch, is your definition of "information" as you implied, "bits per second", or what?

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:54   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2010,19:20)
Joe G:
         
Quote
With that said to measure biological information, ie biological specification, all you have to do is count the coding nucleotides of the genes involved for that functioning system and then multiply by 2 (four possible nucleotides = 2^2).

Now randomize the coding nucleotides so they do nothing and specify nothing - neither "viability" nor "minimal function" nor "specific effects." Count them, and multiply by two, and arrive at precisely the same value.

So, Joe, tell us again how your procedure measures specified information?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
  9690 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (324) < ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]