Jump to content


Photo

Free Scientists Lecture !


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#41 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 20 May 2008 - 03:31 PM

Well, I disagree with much that you say, but for the most part those are other matters and the focus here should be on Gitt information.  If there's anything you'd like to discuss about Gitt information and its status as science just let me know.

--Percy

View Post


Do you Disagree ? Here is a typical example of how mainstream scientists work.

No Longer Expelled

#42 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 20 May 2008 - 05:47 PM

I still fail to see any real difference. "It's accepted so it's true." = "It must have been true or it wouldn't have been accepted." One's just wordier. The actual reasoning process is identical.

View Post


Well, let me try one more rewording. See if this makes the distinction clear.

"It's accepted by scientists so its likely true" is an argument from authority.

"It's likely true because evidence from the real world has convinced scientists to accept it" is an argument from evidence.

And a theory which appears to render evolution impossible will get a fair shake?  :blink:


They don't hand out Nobels to people who just maintain the status quo or only add decimal points to known concepts. Any challenges to evolution based upon sound evidence will receive a fair hearing, as well as generate quite a bit of excitement. With new avenues to explore come new opportunities.

I know that creationists by and large do not believe this, but the important battlefield for creationists is public school science classrooms, and no science will enter that venue that hasn't first been accepted by scientists. That's a reality, independent of whether challenges to evolution really get a fair hearing. That's why creationists have to present their findings to science, whether they feel they're treated fairly or not, and that's why I think Gitt should take his ideas to the halls of science.

I see no reason why Gitt's information should be equated with Shannon's in any way. Why should we try to make Shannon information pie using Gitt information as an ingredient? They're apples & oranges to each other.


I agree.

My question was not about Shannon's theory. My question was about meaningful information. As you no longer appear to concede that meaningful information renders evolution impossible, I would seem mandatory that you disagree with Gitt's assessment. If you find fit to state your grounds for this disagreement, perhaps we'll have some lively discussion after all.


While I don't accept Gitt's ideas, I don't think I could critique them very well because they do not make sense to me. Perhaps if someone could explain how mutations require intelligence I could comment on that.

Shannon's subject was actually fidelity. That he chose the term "information" for that which is transmitted is unfortunate. That his theory of fidelity has come to be called "information theory" is even worse, and is the source of much confusion.


Well, whether you like the term or not, that's the term we have.

Alternatively, one might question Dr. Gitt's choice of the terms. Perhaps he should repackage & use "communication theory", at least in English. He could still include his definition of information, as that which is communicated.


"Communication theory" would be an even worse term for Gitt information, because communications is the primary practical application for information theory. Shannon's original paper was called A Mathematical Theory of Communication.

--Percy

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 May 2008 - 11:26 PM

Well, let me try one more rewording.  See if this makes the distinction clear.

"It's accepted by scientists so its likely true" is an argument from authority.

"It's likely true because evidence from the real world has convinced scientists to accept it" is an argument from evidence.
--Percy

View Post

Actually, to argue from evidence one must submit & interpret the evidence. Your argument is based upon the opinion of others. It assumes evidence exists, but does not employ it.

#44 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 21 May 2008 - 02:41 AM

Perhaps if someone could explain how mutations require intelligence I could comment on that.


Mutations dont require intelligence, but the right mutations on the right spots require intelligence.

#45 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 21 May 2008 - 05:26 AM

Mutations dont require intelligence, but the right mutations on the right spots require intelligence.

View Post


So if we consider some specific mutation at a specific location, the issue becomes telling the difference between it appearing there randomly versus having been placed there by an intelligence. So how does Gitt information provide a way to tell how the mutation came to be where it is?

--Percy

#46 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 21 May 2008 - 05:34 AM

Actually, to argue from evidence one must submit & interpret the evidence. Your argument is based upon the opinion of others. It assumes evidence exists, but does not employ it.

View Post


I haven't made an argument yet. So far I think I've only done two things. One is to suggest that Gitt make an effort to persuade the scientific community of his views. The other is to try to keep discussion focused on the topic of this thread.

It's not actually possible at this point for me to make an argument. In order to attempt a rebuttal of Gitt's ideas about information, someone would have to say something specific about them.

--Percy

#47 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 21 May 2008 - 05:39 AM

No Longer Expelled

View Post


I see now that Mary has kneeled at the Alter of Evolution, she is now free to worship amoungst them again. :blink:

#48 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 21 May 2008 - 07:10 AM

I haven't made an argument yet.  So far I think I've only done two things.  One is to suggest that Gitt make an effort to persuade the scientific community of his views.  The other is to try to keep discussion focused on the topic of this thread.

It's not actually possible at this point for me to make an argument.  In order to attempt a rebuttal of Gitt's ideas about information, someone would have to say something specific about them.

--Percy

View Post


Maybe someone can begin by explaining where Gitt proves his "theorems"? Is this in a separate paper or book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proven on the basis of previously accepted or established statements. In mathematical logic, theorems are modeled as formulas that can be derived according to the derivation rules of a fixed formal system.

In formal settings, an essential property of theorems is that they are derivable using a fixed set of inference rules and axioms without any additional assumptions. This is not a matter of the semantics of the language: the expression that results from a derivation is a syntactic consequence of all the expressions that precede it. In mathematics, the derivation of a theorem is often interpreted as a proof of the truth of the resulting expression, but different deductive systems can yield other interpretations, depending on the meanings of the derivation rules.

The proofs of theorems have two components, called the hypotheses and the conclusions. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument demonstrating that the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, in the sense that if the hypotheses are true then the conclusions must also be true, without any further assumptions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

Since he wants to draw conclusions from these "theorems", it is critical that he shows his proofs. Some of his "theorems" sound somewhat reasonable, while others do not. However, the reason one uses the formal mathematical term "theorem" in a scientific paper is because it involves a some sort of proof - not because it 'sounds' somewhat reasonable to the author.

For example:

Theorem 5: The assignment of the symbol set is based on convention and constitutes a mental process.

I assumed he has proved this. Otherwise he would have used the word assumption, or hypothesis (or simply belief). Unfortunately, he does not show where he proved this.

If he later wants to say DNA involves a mental process, then it is rather critical that he shows the mathematical logic behind these theorems. What is certainly not allowed in a mathematical "theorem" is an argument from ignorence (e.g., well, I can't think of any symbol sets - other than DNA- that don't involve a mental process, therefore the statement must be true).

Thanks.
James

#49 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 21 May 2008 - 08:04 AM

Maybe someone can begin by explaining where Gitt proves his "theorems"? Is this in a separate paper or book?


Hi jamesf,

I hope you are really interested in the answer to you question.

A detailed summary of Gitts definitions and theories can be found here:

Gitts Theorems

His entire book can be found online here....

In The Beginning Was Information

Happy reading!

Also, I think you should be aware that theorems are not only mathematical. They are also logical.

Theorem from dictionary .com
3. Logic. a proposition that can be deduced from the premises or assumptions of a system. 
4. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof. 


Most of Gitts theorems are logical deductions from many definitions that are presented, as well as Shannon's work.

Please be aware that Shannon's information theory has nothing to do with the creation of information (mental process) or the reception of information (mental process). Shannon's theories deal with the transportation of information. The creator (the sendor of the logic) and the decoder (the reciever of the logic) are not considered in Shannon's work. Only the transmission process from sender to receiver.

To clarify, I am communicating logic to you in this post. Shannon's theories and technology built on those theories provides that the letters I typed will be transmitted to you accurately. Shannon's theories do not address my logic in organizing the letters or your logic in interpreting the letters.

In every communication of logic, there is a loss of logical information that is a result of the recievers mind. The only way to reduce this is to have a better understanding of the reciever, or to have the mind of the reciever. That is why God provideds that capability to those that follow Him.

1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

#50 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 21 May 2008 - 08:44 AM

So if we consider some specific mutation at a specific location, the issue becomes telling the difference between it appearing there randomly versus having been placed there by an intelligence.  So how does Gitt information provide a way to tell how the mutation came to be where it is?

--Percy

View Post


Because the mutation needs to obey the code for it has some meaning.The code is not a chemical property of the DNA.Therefore, all mutations are deleterious or neutral.

#51 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 21 May 2008 - 08:52 AM

Hi jamesf,

I hope you are really interested in the answer to you question.

A detailed summary of Gitts definitions and theories can be found here:

Gitts Theorems

His entire book can be found online here....

In The Beginning Was Information

Happy reading!

View Post


Yes, I previously read (ok, skimmed through) all of the book available online and nowhere (that I can find) does he show where he proves his theorems. You simply provided a list of those theorems - and a link to the book. As an "information scientist", he would certainly know that theorems require proofs. However, without such proofs I am led to believe that he used the term only to attempt to impress the lay reader that does not know the definition of theorem. However, I am happy to be corrected.

So please just show me where he proves his theorems. If you know a page number (that I may have missed) feel free to show me the pages that show the proofs. I would like the read the assumptions and logic regarding the proof of each theorem. For example, on page 65 he shows some of the "theorems" but he does not provide a link to the proofs of these theorems. I understand that Gitt may believe these statements are true. But it does not matter whether, Gitt or you or I believe this is or is not true. I am looking for the
"statement proven on the basis of previously accepted or established statements". I am particularly interested in the theorems that prove that a code or a symbol must involve a mental process.
Thanks ,
James

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proven on the basis of previously accepted or established statements. In mathematical logic, theorems are modeled as formulas that can be derived according to the derivation rules of a fixed formal system.

...

The proofs of theorems have two components, called the hypotheses and the conclusions. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument demonstrating that the conclusions are a necessary consequence of the hypotheses, in the sense that if the hypotheses are true then the conclusions must also be true, without any further assumptions.



#52 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 21 May 2008 - 09:16 AM

Yes, I previously read (ok, skimmed through) all of the book available online and nowhere (that I can find) does he show where he proves his theorems. You simply provided a list of those theorems - and a link to the book. As an "information scientist", he would certainly know that theorems require proofs. However, without such proofs I am led to believe that he used the term only to attempt to impress the lay reader that does not know the definition of theorem.  However, I am happy to be corrected.

   So please just show me where he proves his theorems. If you know a page number (that I may have missed) feel free to show me the pages that show the proofs. I would like the read the assumptions and logic regarding the proof of each theorem. For example, on page 65 he shows some of the "theorems" but he does not provide a link to the proofs of these theorems. I understand that Gitt may believe these statements are true. But it does not matter whether, Gitt or you or I believe this is or is not true. I am looking for the
   "statement proven on the basis of previously accepted or established statements". I am particularly interested in the theorems that argue that a code or a symbol must involve a mental process.
   Thanks ,
     James

View Post


Jamesf

Sorry, I was editting my post while you were writing. Please review the other definitions of Theorems. I have read most of the arguments agains Gitt's work. Arguments are logic. You are demonstrating Gitt's theorems. We have a language. That language was developed with a mental process. It is a logical deduction (theorem) that all languages are developed with a mental process. A language is a code. DNA demonstrates a code. The scientific community agrees with this. And it is an extremely complex code. It is illogical to deduce that randomness could produce such a communication.

I have heard most of the arguments that say that information can be created without a mental process. Now let's just see how your logic works. Would it be possible for nature to produce your post randomly and both you and I be able to undertand it? Now remember nature doesn't know your language or mine. It doesn't even know the alphabet. Nature has all the matter and energy in the universe, and of course time. If you have that much faith in something your mind can't comprehend, then couldn't you have a little faith in a God you cannot comprehend?

Your post was smaller than the coding within most single genes. Could that happen randomly? Could it happen given enough time?

God is revealling the answer to you. Open your mind!

#53 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 21 May 2008 - 01:55 PM

Because the mutation needs to obey the code for it has some meaning.  The code is not a chemical property of the DNA.  Therefore, all mutations are deleterious or neutral.

View Post


A mutation doesn't care about any code or meaning. Whatever effects the mutation has, that's what happens. No code or meaning required.

--Percy

#54 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 21 May 2008 - 02:40 PM

A mutation doesn't care about any code or meaning.  Whatever effects the mutation has, that's what happens.  No code or meaning required.

--Percy

View Post


Ink doesn´t care about any code or meaning also, that´s the reason why it´s necessary an intelligent designer to write a book.Spill ink on a paper whatever effects it can have , will not write a word , specially a book. Mutations without a direction of an intelligent designer cannot build up an organ or a system, it will only mess the genetic code like noise mess the message of a communication channel.

#55 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 21 May 2008 - 02:54 PM

Ink doesn´t care about any code or meaning also, that´s the reason why it´s necessary an intelligent designer to write a book.Spill ink on a paper whatever effects it can have , will not write a word , specially a book. Mutations without a direction of an intelligent designer cannot build up an organ or a system, it will only mess the genetic code like noise mess the message of a communication channel.

View Post


The analogy of ink with mutations doesn't work because ink doesn't go through a selection stage between generations and books don't reproduce.

Imagine a point mutation, which is a single nucleotide (C, A, T and G) in a DNA strand replaced with another. Perhaps at some point the sequence changed from ...CCCTTTAAAG... to ...CCCTTTAAAT. The specifics aren't important. The question is how you tell the difference between a mutation caused randomly versus a mutation caused by an intelligent designer using Gitt information.

--Percy

#56 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 21 May 2008 - 05:25 PM

The analogy of ink with mutations doesn't work because ink doesn't go through a selection stage between generations and books don't reproduce.


It´s irrelevant because we are analyzing the probability of random mutations build something meaningful, meaningless mutations will not reproduce also.

Imagine a point mutation, which is a single nucleotide (C, A, T and G) in a DNA strand replaced with another.  Perhaps at some point the sequence changed from ...CCCTTTAAAG... to ...CCCTTTAAAT.  The specifics aren't important.  The question is how you tell the difference between a mutation caused randomly versus a mutation caused by an intelligent designer using Gitt information.


It is the same difference between trying to change the phrase :

Evolution is impossible because it violates the laws of probability

to the following :

To Evolution be true is necessary to violate the laws of probability.

Using an intelligent designer or changing the letters randomly.

#57 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 21 May 2008 - 05:43 PM

It´s irrelevant because we are analyzing the probability of random mutations build something meaningful, meaningless mutations will not reproduce also.

View Post


Actually, you're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate. In other words, you're assuming that meaning is important to beneficial mutations when what you're trying to show is that meaning is important to beneficial mutations.

But mutations don't care about meaning. Let's say we're looking at a specific point mutation in a bacterial cell that we both agree is beneficial. Your position is that the mutation must have been placed there by an intelligent designer because only only a mutation that produced a code with meaning could be beneficial.

But point mutations happen all the time. In fact, they're inevitable. Replication during cell division is almost never perfect. It is a very rare cell division that results in no point mutations. So given that a random point mutation could occur anywhere in the genome, it could have happened to cause the specific point mutation that we're looking at. This means that intelligence isn't required to cause a beneficial mutation.

So the question is how, using Gitt information, you tell the difference between a random mutation and one inserted by an intelligent designer.

--Percy

#58 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 22 May 2008 - 06:17 AM

Actually, you're assuming what you're trying to demonstrate.  In other words, you're assuming that meaning is important to beneficial mutations when what you're trying to show is that meaning is important to beneficial mutations.

But mutations don't care about meaning.  Let's say we're looking at a specific point mutation in a bacterial cell that we both agree is beneficial.  Your position is that the mutation must have been placed there by an intelligent designer because only only a mutation that produced a code with meaning could be beneficial.

But point mutations happen all the time.  In fact, they're inevitable.  Replication during cell division is almost never perfect.  It is a very rare cell division that results in no point mutations.  So given that a random point mutation could occur anywhere in the genome, it could have happened to cause the specific point mutation that we're looking at.  This means that intelligence isn't required to cause a beneficial mutation.

So the question is how, using Gitt information, you tell the difference between a random mutation and one inserted by an intelligent designer.

--Percy

View Post


I didnt say beneficial, I said build an organ or System.Even deleterious mutations can be beneficial. Organs and systems need thousand of specific mutations, you cannot build a new organ with only one or two point mutations.So, only an intelligent designer who knows the code can overcome the infinety number of meaningless combinations ( No free lunch Theorem).

If I ask you to write a meaningful phrase with 10 words in English, you can do it easily and fast because you know the code.But if you try to do it mixing the letters randomly .... :blink:

#59 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 22 May 2008 - 06:53 AM

Even deleterious mutations can be beneficial.

View Post


This reads like a contradiction, and if you're referring to mutations like the one for sickle cell anemia then I don't see the tie-in to the discussion. Can you clarify?

I didn't say beneficial, I said build an organ or System.

View Post


I know you didn't use the precise word "beneficial", but that seemed to be your point back in Message 54, where you seemed to be saying that mutations with meaning can create organs and systems, while random mutations only "mess the genetic code like noise":

Mutations without a direction of an intelligent designer cannot build up an organ or a system, it will only mess the genetic code like noise mess the message of a communication channel.


So you go on to say:

Organs and systems need thousand of specific mutations, you cannot build a new organ with only one or two point mutations.  So, only an intelligent designer who knows the code can overcome the infinite number of meaningless combinations ( No free lunch Theorem).

View Post


But however many mutations it takes to create new organs or systems, I'm sure we agree that these mutations don't all arise at once. Each new generation contains a few new mutations that make it unique and different from the prior generation. Your view is that an intelligent designer is causing some new mutations with each successive generation and gradually building these new organs or systems.

But given that these mutations can arise randomly, how do you tell the difference, using Gitt information, between a succession of random mutations versus a succession of directed mutations.

If I ask you to write a meaningful phrase with 10 words in English, you can do it easily and fast because you know the code.  But if you try to do it mixing the letters randomly .... :blink:

View Post


But if I get many, many attempts (many "offspring") and many, many trials (many "generations") where I select the best "offspring" in each generation, then this is easy to accomplish.

--Percy

#60 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:45 AM

This reads like a contradiction, and if you're referring to mutations like the one for sickle cell anemia then I don't see the tie-in to the discussion.  Can you clarify?


The loss of a trait can be beneficial if that trait make surviving difficult.But macro-evolution needs more than that, it needs mutation which build new organs and systems.

I know you didn't use the precise word "beneficial", but that seemed to be your point back in Message 54, where you seemed to be saying that mutations with meaning can create organs and systems, while random mutations only "mess the genetic code like noise":


No, it wasnt

But however many mutations it takes to create new organs or systems, I'm sure we agree that these mutations don't all arise at once.  Each new generation contains a few new mutations that make it unique and different from the prior generation.


First, the probability is the same independently if it happens all at once or in sequence.

Second, the new organ or system will only work after it is complete ( irreducible complexity ), Natural selection can only select what has function now.


Your view is that an intelligent designer is causing some new mutations with each successive generation and gradually building these new organs or systems.


No, I´m saying that to build new organs or systems by mutation you need an intelligent designer.I believe that all living beings were created with their genetic code.

But given that these mutations can arise randomly, how do you tell the difference, using Gitt information, between a succession of random mutations versus a succession of directed mutations.


Mutations are a copying error , they only cause loss of functionality or information, I dont think that new mutations are being introduced by an intelligent designer.

But if I get many, many attempts (many "offspring") and many, many trials (many "generations") where I select the best "offspring" in each generation, then this is easy to accomplish.


No, it´s not easy. But be free to demonstrate mathematically the evolution of any known protein, organ or system of any living being and how many generations it can be achieved.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users