17 Oct 06
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:
lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha
Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelligible information can be derived:
lC1bQ,AiAC5rTbyO4YlZYBE1bzgM78mZsyGedCqRa2QNmVfO,rPr
The original sentence:
In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
To try it for yourself, visit:
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php
17 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAsk yourself this, is it possible to create small sections of intellible and coherent information by random chance, for example, making the word "the" by simply pulling letters out of a bag at random? If so, and that can be conserved, then an evolutionary type process could easily, given enough time and opportunity (and a selection pressure), recreate the works of Caucer (after all, it's already done it once).
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:
lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha
Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelli ...[text shortened]... ens and the earth.
To try it for yourself, visit:
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php
17 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI assume you mean Chaucer, and I'd appreciate the link.
Ask yourself this, is it possible to create [b]small sections of intellible and coherent information by random chance, for example, making the word "the" by simply pulling letters out of a bag at random? If so, and that can be conserved, then an evolutionary type process could easily, given enough time and opportunity (and a selection pressure), recreate the works of Caucer (after all, it's already done it once).[/b]
17 Oct 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBy 'link,' I meant neither sausage nor one of the main protagonists of the popular show, "Prison Break," but rather, the hyper-"link" to any cite which would bear evidence to your assertion that random mutations were able to produce the works of said Chaucer. Please.
Indeed. There is no "link", humans evolved, Geof Chaucer is a human. Does a beavers dam not evolve? So does the human mind.
17 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIndeed, I am just being difficult. Of course, you and I both know that with infinite chances you can produce any work, even ones which are currently unwritten. The potential exists for all books, even if some are never written. However, a good passage which deals with this type of scenario can be found in the first or second chapter of Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker. He has a program into which random letters are entered. It mutates 10 progeny, and an algorithm selects the closest to a desired phrase. Within normally a dozen generations it can go from jibberish to coherency. Of course, in nature there is no pre-known desired phrase. The "desired phrase" in nature is any which works. We call the undesired phrases "stillborn" (or aborted fetuses).
By 'link,' I meant neither sausage nor one of the main protagonists of the popular show, "Prison Break," but rather, the hyper-"link" to any cite which would bear evidence to your assertion that random mutations were able to produce the works of said Chaucer. Please.
17 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course, in your example there is no selection agent. If imperfect copies were randomly mutated, and the best retained for the next generation, you would get something quite different.
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:
lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha
Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelli ...[text shortened]... ens and the earth.
To try it for yourself, visit:
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php
17 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's ben explained to death in the evolution thread. Were you not listening? Evolution needs the following:
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:
lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha
Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelli ...[text shortened]... ens and the earth.
To try it for yourself, visit:
http://www.randommutation.com/index.php
1. Self-replicating structures.
2. Inheritable features
3. random errors in the replication that can change the features passed on
4. Limited resources with with to replicate (this is what provides a selection pressure since the structures which are best able to access the resources are more likely to replicate)
5. Time (and plenty of it)
So random changes are only one of the five requirements for evolution to work.
I'm sure the evolution thread has pointed you at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html but I'll do it again in case you missed it.
--- Penguin.
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe simple answer is yes given enough time. In fact, interesting patterns are seen all the time in otherwise random data such as numberplates, phone numbers etc. An easy proof of this is the people who shuffle the letters of the Bible around and make surprising 'predictions' from the patterns that they find, See
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
The following was a coherent sentence (shown below), 100 mutations before its current state:
lbVrOiV5UkHXTU6EGADWe0t9duuhLSze6Pa5NnT6gwttdueudpha
Here is the same string, randomly mutated from its current position,
1000 times, to see if intelligible information can be derived:
lC1bQ,AiAC5rTbyO4YlZYBE1bzgM78mZsyGedCqRa2QNmVfO,rPr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
So either you are accepting the above as genuine hidden messages or you accept that meaningfull information can arrise by shuffling letters.
However the sentence you gave as an example would be a poor example of this as it has been carefully concieved to try to disproove it. To start with, the use of numbers in the 'mutations' when the desired result is english which typically only contains letters. Also you require that the full sentence should be 100% meaningfull. If all you want is some interesting information out of it then I can easily demonstrate that.
I see:
M7 - a highway in capetown
Nm - short for Newton meters
Ged - the name of a character in "A Wizard of earthsea"
Ra - The name of an egyptian god
by - an engluish word
AC - Alternating current
Ai - Artificial inteligence
Pr - Public relations
And I found all these in only one out of the 1000 lines you said were available!
Having said all that, if you are trying to draw a parallel to evolution then you are wasting your time because The Theory of Evolution never makes such a claim.
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIndeed, it was this hypothetical library to which I was referring, although not by name, obviously.
Here is a link to a story which is quite relevant to this thread: Borges' "Library of Babel":
http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/jjborges/library_babel.asp
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreakyKBH, I thought that in other threads you had accepted that something you term micro-evolution takes place. ie you accept that mutations do not always lead to death of an organism and that new genes can be usefull. So why post a website which claims the opposite?
Here's a query for consideration. Can random mutation result in coherent and intelligble information?
18 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe small changes wrought by environment have never produced a change in species, even if we deem to re-classify. The lines between say, dog and cat have never been crossed; can never be crossed. Characteristics within genes cannot be shown to leap (even ever so slowly) from one species to another.
FreakyKBH, I thought that in other threads you had accepted that something you term micro-evolution takes place. ie you accept that mutations do not always lead to death of an organism and that new genes can be usefull. So why post a website which claims the opposite?
Not to be harshly critical, but your sentences are full of grammatical errors, random mutations if you will. The exchange of information between two intelligences is not hindered by such errors as one (me) is able to discern the intent of the other (you). In supposed random mutations of information found within nature, who are the agents?