RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (324) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,19:57   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,08:31)
And more projection!

I see you clowns can spew one evotardgasm after another but you don't seem to be able to produce any positive evidence for your position.

Why is that?

You morons can't even understand that ID is not anti-evolution!

Geez wolfie all you have is anger and spittle...

My position is that you are an angry, bitter, nasty, mean-spirited, hateful asshole who insists on returning, again and again, to a place that you obviously hate in order to spew vitriol at people who don't give a fiddler's fart about you or your idiotic non-science. †My evidence for my position has been presented by you, in this very thread. †So there.

And, true to form, instead of answering a simple question, Joey fires once more from his second grade schoolyard arsenal of pithy rejoinders, "That's What You Are But What Am I?" †SRSLY, dude, that's a worse dodge than my 1980 Mirada.

I'm not angry, Joey, you're not worth getting angry over because you are of no consequence. †And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,20:46   

Quote (Joe G @ 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.

What was that about projection, Joey?

Since I don't visit your blog, I only have the ample record you have presented here by which to assess your character or lack thereof. †And brother, you do a good job of selling the opposition's points for them.


Let me repeat that, in case your reading comprehension is for some reason not up to snuff: I don't read your blog. †I can only measure you by your comments here. †Those? †Do not make you look reasonable. †Quite the opposite.


But then, I also get the impression that your only reason for visiting here is to be the biggest jerk you can be out of some masochistic desire to rack up some martyr cred from some other ignoramuses when you are finally invited to take your tripe elsewhere.


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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,21:17   

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 how would you use your Algorithmic Information Theory to determine what the information values of Lamarck's Evening Primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana and its observed daughter species, O. gigas are?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2010,22:55   

Joe, is there anything in the world you know anything about?  I mean things you're willing to let others know you know, you know?

You forgot to address the crippling blow to your CSI methodology.  I know (and everyone else knows) that this is because you have absolutely no idea how to counter it.  You may not even know what the crippling blow actually is in the first place, but it trust me--it's bad.

This is your cue to once again not address the issue but instead take one of two tacks:

1.  I don't know anything, especially about what you know, because I'm a clown.

2.  "The red brick fudges the upstairs house."

Real people with points to make actually make them, Joe.  Try it, you may find it illuminating.

--------------
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. 03 2010,03:20   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2010,01:57)
[SNIP]

And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you I am not touching that comment with a ten foot stick. I will say two things though:

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

2) I think you may just have broken JoeJoe's tiny mind.

Louis

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,07:07   

J'accuse!

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,08:35   

It's very funny that WE are the ones that keep asking joey for more information and requesting his methods and such.

Joe just extrudes vitriol from every orifice and, yet, refuses to discuss his 'notion'.*

Tell you what Joe, in the interest of seeing if you are an adult human, I'll make a deal.  No insults, no flame wars, just honest sincere discussion.  Deal?



* "It is not a great idea.  At best it's a notion and a sucky one at that."

--------------
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. 03 2010,09:54   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,03:20)
{snip}

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Arden's mother says your point total is now approaching zero.

--------------
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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,10:02   

Joe, your reply to Hermagoras is hilarious.  You claim that biologists are not just wrong, but stupid and all studying dead-ends with every post you type.  The great majority of biologists hold a position in direct opposition to your ideas.  Rather than defend your ideas and answer question about them, you spend your time calling biologists idiots and claiming that all of their work is bogus.  The fact that you don't see this as your knowing more than them is hugely entertaining.

For example, you claim in your response that both ToE and Creation(ism) have "hosts of biologists".  This implies that there are a comparable number of biologists working on each.  To support this claim, please list the "host of biologists" working in creationism.

You, of course, will not do this.

--------------
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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,10:20   

The challenge to define ID is interesting, but I  always thought the ID proponentsists should spell out the curriculum they would use if allowed.

Aside from pointing out gaps in our knowledge, what would they teach about design?

If you take courses in design or engineering, you practice the trade and the tools. You make stuff.

I'd like to see an ID advocate explain how to design a new protein from scratch. What Kinds of knowledge would you need in order to do this? How would the knowledge be acquired? Would the information content of this knowledge be greater or lesser than the information required to proceed incrementally, testing each step?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,10:35   

Joe will give you his curriculum only if you go to his house where he can hit you before he gives up his super-secret, level 9 Illuminati coursework for 7th graders.

It's an interesting strategy to get your ideas accepted.  It seems to be working fabulously :)

--------------
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

   
KCdgw



Posts: 376
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,10:48   

I'd like to see the materials cakeboy uses for his "Intelligent Design Day" presentations at the Keene Public schools.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
JohnW



Posts: 2814
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,10:58   

Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 02 2010,16:59)
Or are things just a little bigger well because there is more stuff in the package?

In your dreams, Captain Bottom.  In your dreams.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,11:16   

Joe makes an appearance at Corny's blog

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010....ng.html

I put to him RBill's point. His response was as content free as it was predictable.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,11:19   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 03 2010,10:20)
The challenge to define ID is interesting, but I †always thought the ID proponentsists should spell out the curriculum they would use if allowed.

Aside from pointing out gaps in our knowledge, what would they teach about design?

If you take courses in design or engineering, you practice the trade and the tools. You make stuff.

I'd like to see an ID advocate explain how to design a new protein from scratch. What Kinds of knowledge would you need in order to do this? How would the knowledge be acquired? Would the information content of this knowledge be greater or lesser than the information required to proceed incrementally, testing each step?


Canned response in 3...2...1...

Quote
† †Dembski Wrote:

As for your example, Iím not going to take the bait. Youíre asking me to play a game: ďProvide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.Ē ID is not a mechanistic theory, and itís not IDís task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.Ē


--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,12:49   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2010,15:54)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,03:20)
{snip}

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Arden's mother says your point total is now approaching zero.

"Approaching" covers a multitude of highly negative values! ;-)

Louis

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,13:54   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,12:49)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2010,15:54)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,03:20)
{snip}

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Arden's mother says your point total is now approaching zero.

"Approaching" covers a multitude of highly negative values! ;-)

Louis

Yes, and the good news is she says you're getting better.  Bad news, apparently your points total is on an asymptotic path....

--------------
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. 03 2010,15:33   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2010,19:54)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,12:49)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2010,15:54)
 
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,03:20)
{snip}

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Arden's mother says your point total is now approaching zero.

"Approaching" covers a multitude of highly negative values! ;-)

Louis

Yes, and the good news is she says you're getting better. †Bad news, apparently your points total is on an asymptotic path....

Curses! Foiled by an ever decreasing return for my efforts!

Damn you mathematics! DAMN YOUUUU!

Louis

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,17:21   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 02 2010,17:57)
†And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Blessed is the swallower. Rawr!

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein †(H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,17:49   

Joe G clarifies:
† † † † † †
Quote
Well Bill, if you could read you would have read that what I said only apllies to sequences with a biological function.

Ah.

So it is not possible, using your technique for measuring specified information, to determine whether a given sequence of unknown function actually bears specified information.

Rather, one must already know that a sequence contains specified information, and exactly how much, before applying your measure. Then it correctly indicates that the sequence contains specified information, and exactly how much.

Rather like a temperature gauge that always reads "very hot." It works, but only when applied to objects that are very hot.

--------------
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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4841
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,20:08   

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.

The point is simple -- you don't know what you are talking about. Nobody is fooled by your act, failing to acknowledge where your claims have been shown to be false.

You said that I was "wed to Shannon". You obviously haven't read what I've written on the topic; anyone who had would have avoided that clear mistake.

You said that two copies of the same information holds no more information than one copy alone. You are wrong by formal accounts of information (unpublished connotations don't count). Again, anyone having actually read Elsberry and Shallit 2003 would have found the discussion of increasing information via functions on pages 47 and 48, and might even have seen footnote 19:

 
Quote

Dembski claims "there is no more information in two copies of Shakespeare's Hamlet than in a single
copy. This is of course patently obvious, and any formal account of information had better agree." [17, p.
158]; [19, p. 129] This is much too glib. We have just shown that yy nearly always contains more SAI than y.
Similarly, Kolmogorov complexity itself is a formal account of information, and it can be shown that there
exist infinitely many strings y such that C(yy) > C(y). For other formal accounts of information where yy
has more information than y, see Vitanyi's quantum information theory [91] and the automatic complexity
of Shallit & Wang [86].


Further, your response to the biological examples provided by tetraploid daughter species is a capitulation, not a denial: you apparently agree that two copies of the same information does result in morphologically distinct species. Dismissing the degree of difference in the morphology is irrelevant; under your claimed paradigm of how two copies of information is no different than one copy of that information, no difference of any sort would be appreciable. You are wrong about information and ought to own up.

Not, of course, that I am expecting that. But at least we have your documented failures here on record where you can't expunge it.

As for that last bit about taking a stance that two copies of information doesn't produce two bodies, well, at least you are developing dialogue worthy of piping through a ventriloquist's dummy. I got a chuckle out of it at least.

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2134
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,20:43   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,01:20)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2010,01:57)
[SNIP]

And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you I am not touching that comment with a ten foot stick. I will say two things though:

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Good Lord! She does restraints too!

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,21:42   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 03 2010,20:43)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,01:20)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2010,01:57)
[SNIP]

And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you I am not touching that comment with a ten foot stick. I will say two things though:

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Good Lord! She does restraints too!

You should see the glint in his eyes when she puts him on the Rack.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2010,22:14   

Joe tries to have his 'farting-flash' moment...

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/12/little-evotards.html

--------------
"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

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,12:35   

Joe:
Quote

The Artic [sic] ice volume is up too.


lol


  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,13:29   

Joe:
Quote
Evidence for a chromosomal fusion is not evidence for Common Descent.

It could very well be that Adam and Eve- that Creationist bottle-neck- had 48 and then somewhere along the line there was a fusion.

Or it could be that they had 46 and that the fusion was a design feature for reproductive isolation.


Or it could be that you're an IDiot Joe....

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,13:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 04 2010,13:29)
Joe:
Quote
Evidence for a chromosomal fusion is not evidence for Common Descent.

It could very well be that Adam and Eve- that Creationist bottle-neck- had 48 and then somewhere along the line there was a fusion.

Or it could be that they had 46 and that the fusion was a design feature for reproductive isolation.


Or it could be that you're an IDiot Joe....

But he sure as heel requires a complete listing of every step, every mutation event, and every offspring to show that evolution is true.

Meanwhile, he'll accept 'just so' stories with no possible way to test them.

Got that. thanks.

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

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

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,16:47   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 03 2010,21:43)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,01:20)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2010,01:57)
[SNIP]

And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you I am not touching that comment with a ten foot stick. I will say two things though:

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

Good Lord! She does restraints too!

*cough* spreader bar *cough*

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,16:50   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2010,04:20)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Dec. 03 2010,01:57)
[SNIP]

And I'm actually a swallower, not a spittler.

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you I am not touching that comment with a ten foot stick. I will say two things though:

1) I expect credit for my restraint. Please speak to the Official Global Union of Women and Lady Persons about getting my points total updated.

2) I think you may just have broken JoeJoe's tiny mind.

Louis

1)  You can haz cookie.

2)  It wuz awready broked when I squozed it.

3)  Smoochies!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2010,17:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 03 2010,20:08)
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.

The point is simple -- you don't know what you are talking about. Nobody is fooled by your act, failing to acknowledge where your claims have been shown to be false.

You said that I was "wed to Shannon". You obviously haven't read what I've written on the topic; anyone who had would have avoided that clear mistake.

You said that two copies of the same information holds no more information than one copy alone. You are wrong by formal accounts of information (unpublished connotations don't count). Again, anyone having actually read Elsberry and Shallit 2003 would have found the discussion of increasing information via functions on pages 47 and 48, and might even have seen footnote 19:

Quote

Dembski claims "there is no more information in two copies of Shakespeare's Hamlet than in a single
copy. This is of course patently obvious, and any formal account of information had better agree." [17, p.
158]; [19, p. 129] This is much too glib. We have just shown that yy nearly always contains more SAI than y.
Similarly, Kolmogorov complexity itself is a formal account of information, and it can be shown that there
exist infinitely many strings y such that C(yy) > C(y). For other formal accounts of information where yy
has more information than y, see Vitanyi's quantum information theory [91] and the automatic complexity
of Shallit & Wang [86].


Further, your response to the biological examples provided by tetraploid daughter species is a capitulation, not a denial: you apparently agree that two copies of the same information does result in morphologically distinct species. Dismissing the degree of difference in the morphology is irrelevant; under your claimed paradigm of how two copies of information is no different than one copy of that information, no difference of any sort would be appreciable. You are wrong about information and ought to own up.

Not, of course, that I am expecting that. But at least we have your documented failures here on record where you can't expunge it.

As for that last bit about taking a stance that two copies of information doesn't produce two bodies, well, at least you are developing dialogue worthy of piping through a ventriloquist's dummy. I got a chuckle out of it at least.

Wow, Joe.  I think there's only one thing you can do now.

It's either:

1.  Address the multiple issues that Wes so clearly set down
2.  Tell us all that Wes is an asshat who doesn't understand what you're talking about and then give no examples of what you're talking about.

I think 2 is the way to go.  It's short and makes the funny.

--------------
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

   
  9716 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (324) < ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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