Why male and female?

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, I'm pointing out the difference between two types of information.

Matter has and retains its information, it can't be 'lost' unless it gets swallowed up by a black hole. Even then we really don't know if it's been lost or not, all we know for sure is we can't see it anymore. The information I'm talking about can come and go without leaving any trac ...[text shortened]... tion then all I can say is "Well, duh... that's what I've been trying to tell you!"

You can remove data from a hard drive, but you can't remove "information", not even if you chop up the hard drive and throw it in a volcano.

If you've been trying to tell me that your use of the word "information" as applied to DNA is misguided, then I'm a bit confused.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You can remove data from a hard drive, but you can't remove "information", not even if you chop up the hard drive and throw it in a volcano.

If you've been trying to tell me that your use of the word "information" as applied to DNA is misguided, then I'm a bit confused.

You posted as I was editing. If the edited version does't work for you then I don't know what the problem is.

If you can't remove information, but you can remove the data containing the information, then did the information ascend into heaven? Where is it?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you've been trying to tell me that your use of the word "information" as applied to DNA is misguided, then I'm a bit confused.

If you're a bit confused it's because you are applying the layman's definition of the word "confused" to what is really happening here.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you want to argue and say information theory doesn't cover this kind of information then all I can say is "Well, duh... that's what I've been trying to tell you!"

It seems to me you have totally changed your argument. You started with the claim:

In fact, it you look at information theory you'll see there is nothing to suggest new information can spontaneously arise in (inorganic) matter.

In other words you claimed that information theory backed you up. Now you seem to be saying that your claim is not backed up by information theory.
Its also interesting that you haven't given a concise definition of what you mean by 'information', you have only told us what you do not mean.

So lets clarify:
1. If I drop a bunch of random letters on the floor, and some of them spell a word, is that 'information'?
2. If I think I see a picture of the Virgin Mary in my toast, is that 'information'?
3. If yes to the above two, are the random letters that do not spell words 'information'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems to me you have totally changed your argument. You started with the claim:

In fact, it you look at information theory you'll see there is nothing to suggest new information can spontaneously arise in (inorganic) matter.

In other words you claimed that information theory backed you up. Now you seem to be saying that your claim is n ...[text shortened]... If yes to the above two, are the random letters that do not spell words 'information'?

Information is defined as knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance.

So none of the examples you give qualify as information.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Information is defined as knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance.

So none of the examples you give qualify as information.

The Instructor

So when I read the word, or see the picture, do they become information?
If a piece of DNA is not being communicated or received does it therefore contain no information?
Can you give an example of something that is information by your definition?

Originally posted by lemon lime
You posted as I was editing. If the edited version does't work for you then I don't know what the problem is.

If you can't remove information, but you can remove the data containing the information, then did the information ascend into heaven? Where is it?

It's in the environment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when I read the word, or see the picture, do they become information?
If a piece of DNA is not being communicated or received does it therefore contain no information?
Can you give an example of something that is information by your definition?

Yes, if you gain knowledge from it, then it would be information according to the definition. DNA can contain information to be communicated, but just like a hard drive, it can be without information. A computer program would be information.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, if you gain knowledge from it, then it would be information according to the definition. DNA can contain information to be communicated, but just like a hard drive, it can be without information. A computer program would be information.

The Instructor

They want to limit the defintion of the word "information" to mean only one thing. Instead of saying "information" in the context of communication or instructions, they want to call it "data". I don't know how far they are willing to go with this... they might want to say they aren't getting "information" from news stories, they are getting "data".

I wouldn't worry about this. It just means there is something here they want to avoid talking about.

Originally posted by lemon lime
They want to limit the defintion of the word "information" to mean only one thing. Instead of saying "information" in the context of communication or instructions, they want to call it "data". I don't know how far they are willing to go with this... they might want to say they aren't getting "information" from news stories, they are getting "data".

I w ...[text shortened]... about this. It just means there is something here they want to avoid talking about.

I may be mistaken, but weren't you the one who brought up information theory in the first place? You can't just bring something up, arbitrarily redefine it, and then accuse others who aren't accepting said redefinition of "avoiding" the discussion.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I may be mistaken, but weren't you the one who brought up information theory in the first place? You can't just bring something up, arbitrarily redefine it, and then accuse others who aren't accepting said redefinition of "avoiding" the discussion.

Just an aside: If you take a terabyte HD full of data, real data not just 1's and 0' in a row, and erase that data, if you had been able to weigh the HD before and after, accurate to say the weight or mass of a neutrino, would there be a difference in the weight or mass of the HD?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I may be mistaken, but weren't you the one who brought up information theory in the first place? You can't just bring something up, arbitrarily redefine it, and then accuse others who aren't accepting said redefinition of "avoiding" the discussion.

Yes, I was the one who brought up information theory in the first place. If you go back and look at what I said, you will see I haven't redefined anything. Or maybe you won't see that... I have no idea what you "saw". Look at all of those messages, not just the first one. You will see me saying the same thing over and over again... or may not. I have no idea what you are able to see or not see, but that's not my problem... is it?

Did you interpret my making a distinction between two different forms of information to mean I'm saying they are the same? If you want to avoid calling one form of information "information", so that you may continue explaining what information "actually" is, then there is really no point in going on from here... is there?

You are agreeing they are not the same and arguing they are not the same. What am I supposed to do with that? By the way, I don't believe you were "a bit confused".... you knew what you were doing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A computer program would be information.

No, not until the computer actually runs it. According to your definition, a computer program on a CD that is not in the computer, is not information.

Originally posted by lemon lime
They want to limit the defintion of the word "information" to mean only one thing. Instead of saying "information" in the context of communication or instructions, they want to call it "data".

I see you haven't yet given a definition, nor answered my questions asking for clarification. Do you agree with RJHinds' answers? Do you realise he is contradicting himself?
Do you also realise that he is contradicting your claims? After all you said information cannot arise by itself in inorganic matter, yet RJ clearly states that a piece of toast can transmit information when a person looks at it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, I was the one who brought up information theory in the first place. If you go back and look at what I said, you will see I haven't redefined anything. Or maybe you won't see that... I have no idea what you "saw". Look at all of those messages, not just the first one. You will see me saying the same thing over and over again... or may not. I have no i ...[text shortened]... he way, I don't believe you were "a bit confused".... you knew what you were doing.

Well, I just don't get your point. Of course you're free to use whatever definition you like - it's just that the laymen's definition is irrelevant to evolution.