tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817057.post2529534981901776886..comments2023-11-09T05:18:44.141-05:00Comments on JC's Blog: Life is more than chemistryJChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12753309808254573131noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817057.post-25815518702480369532009-06-05T09:18:46.047-04:002009-06-05T09:18:46.047-04:00Hi, Rich,
Information theory is about symbolic (e...Hi, Rich,<br /><br />Information theory is about symbolic (encoded) information, not intrinsic (unencoded) information, that is, information expressed in some kind of language. So language theory is also involved. Rich, you are right: information theory is about the syntax, not the semantics, of the language. Probability theory is also involved, to deal with random errors, and to use the statistics of the language to evaluate the 'surprise effect' of a message, evaluate compression methods, etc. For example, you can gather statistics about the French language by analyzing a bunch of French books and use the statistics to design a compression scheme optimized for French, all without understanding a word of French.<br /><br />"...random mutations essentially create information since they increase the entropy of the genome." You are repeating a myth created by the evolutionists. I have used information theory for more than 40 years (obtaining more than 40 patents relating to it), and believe me, information never can arise from randomness. Information theory defines perfect randomness as zero information. In the design of information storage and communication systems we are always combating the effects of random changes, which always decreases the amount of information, and never increases it.<br /><br />You may hear about 'information' such as cloud patterns, being generated from random events, but there is a difference between pattern and information. For example, 10101010101010101010 is 20 bits of symbols, but not 20 bits of information. Depending on the context, it might be one bit of information: "Did the sequence begin with 1 or 0?" or "Did he send the 10101010.. pattern or the 11001100.. pattern?" GPS, for example, uses very long bit patterns to convey very little information: "Which satellite is sending this signal?" (less than 5 bits) <br /><br />"..while common sense would not lead one to expect to find a watch build itself out of parts, this is not necessarily forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics either." One might argue that the probability of this happening is non-zero. Let's say that the probability is roughly 0.00000..00001. How many zeros are there between the decimal point and the first non-zero digit? Is the number of zeros a 4-digit number?, or 5?, or 6?.. When the probability is so incredibly small, it might as well be zero, especially because the time for the watch to "build itself" is so much longer than the time that the watch can be expected to operate before it rusts away. Some day I may write a blog on "Evolution as a Markov Process" to explain this further.<br /><br />"..they jump .. to the conclusion that natural selection alone must be the sole explanation.." Most creationists believe that natural selection is God's provision for species to adapt to environmental changes (it's called microevolution), but they don't jump to the conclusion that a sufficient number of small changes can make a completely different species (macroevolution). Try this experiment: Take any sentence in this blog and 'evolve' it by changing (or adding or deleting) one letter at a time, into another sentence. At each step, the sentence must be 'viable' (meaningful). If you are clever, you will be able to make a similar sentence, but never a completely different sentence.JChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12753309808254573131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817057.post-75821585267207725222009-06-02T21:59:33.398-04:002009-06-02T21:59:33.398-04:00Information theory is one of those things that I&#...Information theory is one of those things that I've always been meaning to learn a bit more about. However, from what I've read it is really more about understanding the predictability/entropy of a stream of data moreso than any meaning attached to it. In that sense, random mutations essentially create information since they increase the entropy of the genome. Then again, most of what I know about entropy in information theory is from reading about random number generators/ cryptography/ hashes/ etc.<br /><br />That said, I'm hardly of the mindset that random chance alone is the reason we're all here. <br /><br />I just think that we do need to be careful about extrapolating too far beyond the limits of the applicability of physical laws. For example, while common sense would not lead one to expect to find a watch build itself out of parts, this is not necessarily forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics either. <br /><br />Likewise, evolutionists can make similar mistakes when they jump from observations of how evolution can occur today to the conclusion that natural selection alone must be the sole explanation for the diversity of life that exists today. <br /><br />Science is generally more useful for understanding the present than the past - we just don't know enough about the circumstances around the past to apply the laws of biology/physics/etc as we know them.<br /><br />In any case, nice to see somebody branching out in retirement. If you ever have any (bio)chemistry questions feel free to ask (I'm Melody's friend Terry's husband, Rich). However, it certainly seems like you've been doing fairly well on your own. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817057.post-64836429205068899022008-10-15T20:48:00.000-04:002008-10-15T20:48:00.000-04:00Thanks for your interest and comments.You're right...Thanks for your interest and comments.<BR/><BR/>You're right about analogies. But I don't use analogies for logic, but only to illustrate the concepts, especially for the less scientific reader. So, for example, the fact that the DNA is replicated in each cell is interesting, but not relevant to the argument.<BR/><BR/>"Computer software does not construct pieces of hardware." You've never heard of computer-controlled machines? I've written software to design hardware, too.<BR/><BR/>Merging "information from two configurations of the design" is one area where God's designs are more sophisticated than ours; but we are beginning to copy that paradigm.<BR/><BR/>Computers are made with some degree of adaptibility, to work in an international market, for example; but as I said, not as sophisticated as God's designs.<BR/><BR/>"Point mutations, duplication, transposition, imprinting, methylation,.... And on an on." Yes, I'm quite aware of all that. These all re-arrange, select, suppress, and/or destroy the information already present, which provide multiple choices from the beginning. Making information from nothing would violate information theory. Computer software can use "genetic algorithms", but that is not relevant, because the analogy is not the argument, as I said.<BR/><BR/>"A new law of information theory has appeared." Sorry for your ignorance, but I plan to expand on this point in a future blog.<BR/><BR/>"Your readings in organic chemistry apparently did not include anything on evolution." Please don't get personal. (You risk not getting your comments posted.) What do you know of my reading? BTW, I didn't need to look up antepenultimate in the dictionary.JChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12753309808254573131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817057.post-55140089161518645142008-10-15T16:18:00.000-04:002008-10-15T16:18:00.000-04:00Always beware of analogies. They must be tested a...Always beware of analogies. They must be tested against facts, and none is perfect.<BR/><BR/>“In multicellular life, such as animals, the DNA information is actually stored in EACH cell.’ One of many ways in which the analogy breaks down.<BR/><BR/>“There is a mechanism for reading the DNA, interpreting the information to construct proteins and even to control the process.” Another way in which the analogy breaks down. Computer software does not construct pieces of hardware.<BR/><BR/>“For all the various forms of sexual reproduction, a more robust copying process is used, one that can merge information from two configurations of the design.” Still another way in which the analogy falters.<BR/><BR/>“This allows a species to adapt to its current environment.” A major difference between computers and organisms, one which the subsequent sentence admits.<BR/><BR/>“But life lacks one function that computers have. CD readers would not be useful unless we have CD writers for putting information on the CDs -- else there would be no information for the CD readers to read.” How many differences must we name to show that this is a bad analogy to begin with?<BR/><BR/>“But nowhere in any life-form is there any mechanism for writing (recording) information in the DNA” How about evolution? Point mutations, duplication, transposition, imprinting, methylation,.... And on an on. Then selction weeds out the bad stuff and keeps the good. Another difference from computers.<BR/><BR/>“In fact, it is not possible by any chemistry to create the information in the DNA, as this would violate information theory.” Hold the presses! A new law of information theory has appeared. But is there any evidence for it? Citations, please.<BR/><BR/>“So modern scientists observe that life is full of information, but have no scientific way to explain how the information got there.” Your readings in organic chemistry apparently did not include anything on evolution. See the antepenultimate paragraph above.Olorinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05240133812210926831noreply@blogger.com