Joined: June 2006
|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 You are wrong by formal accounts of information (unpublished connotations don't count).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:
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  and the automatic complexity
of Shallit & Wang .
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.
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