Joined: June 2007
|I will say it again- the ONLY reason to ask for the CSI of something is you question how it came to be that way.|
ALL SCIENCE SO FAR
|One final note- the point of CSI is to know whether or not it is present. Its presence is a signal of intentional design. Getting an exact number, although good for parlor games, may or may not be of any use scientifically.|
'exact number' not being different from zero not a problem
Tom Ames has good intentions but these are parlor games remember
|Actually, an important chunk of the information that goes into the development of, say, a Drosophila embryo comes from gradients in the egg that are determined by the mother. The information arising from these "maternal effects" are not necessarily encoded anywhere in the offspring's genome.|
KF, plato, cave, sadly always linked etc. great windup, Tom, I was eagerly awaiting Joes response. not disappointed
Does that mean the offspring does not contain that information?
I would offer here using 'information' as an abstraction for the processes that generate phenotypes is not helpful. Joe already demonstrates a Pavlovian response to the term and his glaze over, he takes it literally as a property of matter. And has resisted thinking it through, clearly.
'the offspring', he says, contains that phenotype as 'information'. Tom refers to the influence of external factors on the development of a phenotype, factors that recursive nonlinear processes. Joe appears to be under the notion that information is some sort of essential property but has delusions that it may be measured somehow although it is not important but he can do it and you are stupid because you want to see behind the curtain but he will show you because he is a swell guy. and then doesn't.
maybe i'm wrong. i don't know what the fuck he is on about.
oleg can't resist punching the pinata
|If I make two cakes from the same recipe, do they contain twice as much information?|
that has bearing on the rambling above. i can't wait to see his answer. that's what makes this good tard.
|Each cake contains the information rtequired in making it.|
That is it. Period.
"Twice as much information" is irrelevant" to the point being made.
Do you understand the point- that designed objects contain the information used in making them?
|Now if you took a recipe and doubled it to make one BIG cake, then that big cake would contain all the information required to make it.|
WHATEVER that information was.
I mean shit you people don't understand that yet?
roflmao. WHAT? It's irrelevant, just forget you saw it. You saw nothing. Look over there.
Oleg says "look sugar we need to measure this stuff if we are going to use it. help us out, pretty please" or something like that. this is good
|You NEED to know?|
I don't believe you.
What do you need it for?
oleg tries one more time to get the point across.
|If your information is contained in a cake, then I would say that it should be additive.|
ever seen that dog on americas funniest home videos that keeps attacking its feet?
|It isn't "my" information.|
Do you understand the point? Yes or No.
The point being that a designed object contains the information required to make it.
Do you agree or disagree?
If you agree then fine we have nothing left to discuss in this thread.
If you disagree fine also. Just demonstrate that a cake can arise without agency involvement.
agree with WHAT? do you agree that seven jumped over anger while malevolence did the moonwalk?
Demonstrating why Richard T Hughes is one of my favorite tard warriors
|Why isn't this Front Page at UD?|
hahaha it might as well be, these days.
you guys are too good to that poor fool. what a great read.
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles