10 Jun 13
6 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI find it just amazing how that website makes something that I thought was fundamental simple sound and seem so ridiculously complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computing
I would personally describe evolutionary computation in just one short sentence as simply being;
"optimizing with computers via them running genetic algorithms designed to optimize"
-that's just eleven words.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're getting closer. You accept that no conscious entity deliberately tried to 'convey' that meaning to you, but you would say nevertheless the meaning was conveyed. You managed to read and interpret the words because they meant something to you... this means nothing is actually being conveyed unless it is being done by you. This is a one way 'communication' and dependent your ability to read English... the 'words' or 'phrases' appearing in the strewn letters would be meaningless to someone who did not understand English. I'm using English as an example because we both have an understanding of that language...
I was just pointing out that your claim that the light coloured moths contained the information required for the dark colour is wrong.
[b]I sometimes use Wikipedia as a source, but I don't regard it as the ultimate authority on all matters.
I don't take it as the ultimate authority either, but in this case, unless you state that you have reason to ...[text shortened]... ns in a row, was the code I entered 'information'? Did it 'convey' anything?[/b]
The 'data' and instructions in DNA does not fit that description. If it did then nothing would happen, and there would be no living organism.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWhy do you come to that conclusion? What makes you so sure that intent is required for DNA to have an effect?
The 'data' and instructions in DNA does not fit that description. If it did then nothing would happen, and there would be no living organism.
If I create a random piece of DNA, are you claiming it will not undergo chemical reactions of any kind, or what exactly are you claiming?
10 Jun 13
7 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeA swirl of wind has an effect. Equations and data/information can describe a swirl of wind. Those equations are part of a 'language' (the language of mathematics). So we have both 'information'/'data' and 'language' to describe a swirl of wind. Extending the use of your same weird logic, that means a swirl of wind occurs with intent else a swirl of wind cannot have any effect. Yet we cannot deny that a hurricane has an effect and yet we know that physics alone, without the intervention of the gods, can fully explain a hurricane and thus it would be insane to think that there is intent behind a hurricane.
You're getting closer. You accept that no conscious entity deliberately tried to 'convey' that meaning to you, but you would say nevertheless the meaning was conveyed. You managed to read and interpret the words because they meant something to you... this means nothing is actually being conveyed unless it is being done by you. This is a one way 'communica ription. If it did then nothing would happen, and there would be no living organism.
Similarly, it is insane to think that there is intent behind the DNA code for mutation and natural selection alone, without the intervention of the gods, can fully explain DNA code and the fact that there is 'information'/'data' there and we can 'read' it as a 'language' doesn't change that fact. The 'language' of the DNA code is the language unintentionally produced by nature or, more specifically, evolution.
10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm claiming there is more happening with DNA than there is with letters strewn on the floor.
Why do you come to that conclusion? What makes you so sure that intent is required for DNA to have an effect?
If I create a random piece of DNA, are you claiming it will not undergo chemical reactions of any kind, or what exactly are you claiming?
DNA doesn't need to have intent. Somehow it's able to accomplish what it does without it being (in and of itself) a conscious entity. It's responsible for building the molecular machines that move around in the cell and perform various functions. Including the machines that go to the DNA itself and find what they are directed to copy... finds it, copies it, then takes the copy to a barrel shaped object where the strand can then fold itself into a protein, then be transported by another molecular machine to where it's needed. However, copied DNA can pass along a damaged gene to the next generation, because as far as I know it doesn't recognise the damage and attempt to repair the gene before passing it along. If DNA had "intent", then I would think it would try repairing any damaged gene before passing it along.
Creating something that can undergo chemical reactions hardly implies an interactive system. DNA is an interactive system, it isn't just a store house for instructions. We call them "instructions" or directions with information because we can see complex interactions with definable purposes. The inner workings of a cell are not just random molecules moving around and interacting randomly with other molecules. Strewn letters on the floor don't interact with one another to do anything, or convey messages to you even if you think something is being conveyed.
If you don't believe me, read a book about what happens inside of cells, or find a video showing what happens. I'm no expert on this subject, so I probably didn't explain it very well.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyWeird Science is a movie about two teenage boys creating the ideal woman. Weird logic can lead one to believe this is possible, and if something is possible, then no matter how remote, given enough time it will happen.
A swirl of wind has an effect. Equations and data/information can describe a swirl of wind. Those equations are part of a 'language' (the language of mathematics). So we have both 'information'/'data' and 'language' to describe a swirl of wind. Extending the use of your same weird logic, that means a swirl of wind occurs with intent else a swirl of wind cannot ...[text shortened]... e unintentionally produced by nature or, more specifically, evolution.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeMaybe God just did not spend enough time on Eve. You think?
Weird Science is a movie about two teenage boys creating the ideal woman. Weird logic can lead one to believe this is possible, and if something is possible, then no matter how remote, given enough time it will happen.
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd I wouldn't dispute that at all. What I dispute is what I thought you claimed which was:
I'm claiming there is more happening with DNA than there is with letters strewn on the floor.
1. That information cannot arise from random events in inorganic material.
2. That unless DNA contains information it will do nothing whatsoever.
I say that even random strings of bases in DNA will do something, contradicting both your 1. and 2.
If you don't believe me, read a book about what happens inside of cells, or find a video showing what happens. I'm no expert on this subject, so I probably didn't explain it very well.
I do not dispute how a cell works. I dispute your claim 1. and 2. above.
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, you are not disputing MY claim 1. and 2.
And I wouldn't dispute that at all. What I dispute is what I thought you claimed which was:
1. That information cannot arise from random events in inorganic material.
2. That unless DNA contains information it will do nothing whatsoever.
I say that even random strings of bases in DNA will do something, contradicting both your 1. and 2.
[b]If you don it very well.
I do not dispute how a cell works. I dispute your claim 1. and 2. above.[/b]
1. I said "new" information cannot arise. For some reason you and one other fellow assumed I was referring to another definition of information AFTER I started off making a distinction between the two. If I say something is NOT the same as something else, how are you able to 'interpret' that to mean I'm saying they are the same? How can new information be the same as static information that does not come and go, but remains in the environment?
2. You oversimplified what I said about DNA. I was saying unless the conveyance of information is a two way communication then nothing can happen in a LIVING organism... I assumed it was understood I was talking about an action OTHER than simple chemical reactions. Apparently I've been assuming too much, and must constantly repeat the same points used to build onto other points.
I could play the same game with you and pretend you are saying something I know you aren't saying. Is that what you want? Are we just here to blow off steam and shovel BS back and forth?
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYes. Thats what I said.
No, you are not disputing MY claim 1. and 2.
1. I said "new" information cannot arise. For some reason you and one other fellow assumed I was referring to another definition of information AFTER I started off making a distinction between the two.
The misunderstanding came because you referred to 'information theory' then proceeded to use a totally different definition for information than the one found in information theory without at any point clarifying that you had used a non-standard definition, nor ever once giving a definition.
It is still not clear what your definition is.
If I say something is NOT the same as something else, how are you able to 'interpret' that to mean I'm saying they are the same? How can new information be the same as static information that does not come and go, but remains in the environment?
I honestly don't know what you are saying. Can you perhaps give some definitions?
2. You oversimplified what I said about DNA. I was saying unless the conveyance of information is a two way communication then nothing can happen in a LIVING organism... I assumed it was understood I was talking about an action OTHER than simple chemical reactions.
Well then please be specific about what action you were talking about. Exactly what cannot happen. Complex chemical reactions? How complex? Exactly what property of those reactions is impossible from random DNA sequences?
Apparently I've been assuming too much, and must constantly repeat the same points used to build onto other points.
Yes, I think you frequently are arguing against points that you think other people have made in some other forum, but which are not being disputed here. You are also very vague about most points you make which makes it very hard to know exactly what you are saying.
The problem is that when you make a conclusive statement with vague terms, it is bound to be wrong. If you say 'nothing can happen' you have to be specific about exactly what can or can't happen.
I could play the same game with you and pretend you are saying something I know you aren't saying. Is that what you want? Are we just here to blow off steam and shovel BS back and forth?
No, I genuinely think you are mistaken about your claims about evolution and your understanding of the subject and genuinely would like to correct you. If however you are right and I am wrong, then I genuinely would like to know about it. If there is something that would prevent evolution or abiogenesis from happening then I really would like to know - and you might even get a Nobel prize for your discovery.
I can also assure you from my past experience with humy that he too has a similar attitude.
Yes, we enjoy debate, but we are also open to learning.
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe bible doesnt say anything about purpose, so how do you know? The bible says we have a completely free will which means we dont have any purpose in this system unless we choose to have one.
It is God the Creator that decides the purpose for His creation, not the creature or the creation. Yes, of course an ant has a purpose. Just because you do not know what it is does not nulify that purpose.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8596341_functions-ants.html
The instructor
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeinstead of making a counterargument, you just change the subject completely.
Weird Science is a movie about two teenage boys creating the ideal woman. Weird logic can lead one to believe this is possible, and if something is possible, then no matter how remote, given enough time it will happen.
I just pointed out why, unless I am missing something, according to the same 'logic' you use for DNA, we must believe that there is intent behind a swirl of wind, which is absurd. So DO you believe that there is intent behind a swirl of wind? if not, why not and how can you think you can rationally apply different conflicting logic to different things when that would imply at least one type of logic you use must be wrong?
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232I don't recall that part where the Holy Bible says we have a completely free will. Could you refresh my memory with that reference please? Even if it did, I can't see that fact would nullify God's purpose for mankind in general.
The bible doesnt say anything about purpose, so how do you know? The bible says we have a completely free will which means we dont have any purpose in this system unless we choose to have one.
The Instructor
11 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIt is clear to all that know about DNA that it's design purpose is for storage of information code. I have never heard anyone but you claim a swirl of wind stores any information code. Are you referring to a tornado or hurricane? Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion. I see from an earlier post that you do mean a hurricane. But the hurricane is the result of certain pressures or forces working against each other as I understand it. It does not store up information code for later use.
instead of making a counterargument, you just change the subject completely.
I just pointed out why, unless I am missing something, according to the same 'logic' you use for DNA, we must believe that there is intent behind a swirl of wind, which is absurd. So DO you believe that there is intent behind a swirl of wind? if not, why not and how can you think you ...[text shortened]... ic to different things when that would imply at least one type of logic you use must be wrong?
The Instructor