|
|
|
frater_memetic_fake
New Member
7 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2005 : 12:16:38 [Permalink]
|
Yag. You clearly were skipping a little in my post. (I can't blame you. it is far too long.) I said that Human Artifacts / Organisms, were the only example of this kind of information, which vary narrowly defined to include only symbolic strings which were not ordered by any rules of thermodynamics/other uninteresting natural processes, were information dense, and were extremely non-random. Though the pulse time of a pulsar could be treated a symbol, since the symbol is information light (ie. you need only to know the distance between two subsequent pulses, to know the entire sequence) it doesn't count. Ignoring the fact that you might be able to show how physics accounts for the sequence deterministically, and throw it out on that grounds as well, In addition, I would argue that a sting of one psudo-symbol, cannot be treated as information, because information requires at least two symbols.
So, as a recap, of my three requirments for my special kind of info: quote:
If there is a much larger 'symbol space' then is generally occupied, and symbolic strings are densely concentrated in very small areas of symbol space and the strings cannot be algorithmically represented with less than a certain amount of information. Picking numbers at random, the symbols are not normally distributed with a confidence of 99.9%, the size of symbol space is at least 10^50th, and the algorithm necessary to represent the information is over 100kb. Then we can be fairly sure that we have information.
We can construct the 'algorithm' f(n)=1 where n is the symbols position in the string, and 1, is the symbol number. Since there is only one symbol. This is distinctly under 100kb. So a pulsar fails. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2005 : 17:50:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by frater_memetic_fake
If there is a much larger 'symbol space' then is generally occupied, and symbolic strings are densely concentrated in very small areas of symbol space and the strings cannot be algorithmically represented with less than a certain amount of information. Picking numbers at random, the symbols are not normally distributed with a confidence of 99.9%, the size of symbol space is at least 10^50th, and the algorithm necessary to represent the information is over 100kb. Then we can be fairly sure that we have information.
If these number have just been pulled out of thin air, why should we lend your definition any credence as reflecting some aspect of reality? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
frater_memetic_fake
New Member
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2005 : 20:54:45 [Permalink]
|
Don't. I don't really care. This is not a serious scientific theory, and I have no intention of making it so. Others have no doubt attacked the problem, and It doesn't interest me enough to do research on it. If you feel that I am wasting your time, don't read my post. I am largely just speculating about the nature of information in a scientific way, but not rigorously so. I have no intention of becoming rigorous. I right enough rigorous stuff, sometimes, it is just fun to speculate.
That said
They weren't exactally 'pulled out of thin air' They are some what arbitrary, because of course you do run into the boarder problem. By saying 'at random' I simply meant that the numbers are subject for revision if there is really any particular reason to do so, They were chosen, as it stand, because
Condition 1) 99.9 is a nice strong 1/1000, or a p value of less then .001, which is above the generally accepted significants of p < .05, This is because I feel that when we find information it should not just look 'fairly not random' it should look REALLY REALLY not random, so anything that has problems passing the first test probably isn't information.
Condition 2) The symbol space size is a little more arbitrary. It is based off a 'reasonable' amount of information, about 35 characters in English, though keep in mind any human language is probably fairly 'info light'. (most possible sequences of symbols are complete garbage, such as 'djsdalfki'. only a small subset are well formed nonsense, such as 'Small cups jump chicken networks.'), The symbol space is chosen slightly larger than probably absolutely necessary in order to avoid analyzing small sequences of symbols which might, randomly, appear non random when they really are random. (Type I error.) This requirement, is in retrospect, probably redundant, because requirement 1 also protects from a Type I error, and this condition is necessarily met if condition 3 is also met. However, this is also the easiest to analyzed, so could be checked first before checking 1 + 3.
Condition 3) Finally, the least well formed of my claims, the 100kb algarithm requirment, I think now it should be replaced.
This is how I originaly envisioned it as working. Given the sequence abcdefghijklmmlkjihgfaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; we could 'compress' it to the function if n<13 f(n)=n; 12<n<22 f(n)=13-n; n>21 n=1; Now that would be readable if we threw out the f(n) and had it as n<13=n;12<n<22=13-n;n>21=1; 10^41. Of course, we would also allow large repeting sequences to be used as symbols, though less so. Now, the posibility always exists that we simply 'missed' the proper compression algaritom such as with, perhaps, b,c,b,c,e,b,a,b,e,c... =(n^2%7)+1. Anyway, the task is by no means simple, and there is lots of nit picking to be done on this last 'compression' point, and I'm sure we would be very enlightend reading information type theory stuff, but I am not a mathematician.
So if you like, you can ignore all of the proceeding discussion on condition 3) and instead we can do this.
Periodic sequences only need to be analyzed out to the smallest period once.
If symbols come in streaks, we can choice, can count the transition between symbols as the 'real' symbols, That would mean that at any point there would be a small chance of 'symbol transition' and a new symbol chosen at random from symbol space. Analyze for randomness using this new schema, and I'm not sure how to analyze it for this condition.
Since there really shouldn't be a simple mathematical relationship between symbols (ie, why would a be 1 any way?), I think my previous idea was somewhat flawed any who.
I still 'feel' that I am accepting in some 'non-information' as information, but I can't think of on what conditions to throw it out right now.
Anyway, I am simply trying to demonstrate that a through going analysis is possible. Not trying to build information theory from the ground up. These are just examples. You are not suppose to accept them as accurate representation of reality, you are suppose to accept it as a rational argument, and decide weather or not you think it is 'reasonable.' Feel free to point out any unreasonable aspects. If you feel that we cannot distinguishes between uninteresting nonrandomness in nature, and interesting nonrandomness, you are free to do so, but I feel that there is likely a body of work out there that contradicts you. Though, I, for one, have not read any of it.
Geez, people always take it so literally when I say I am just pulling stuff out of thin air. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 00:26:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by frater_memetic_fake
I still 'feel' that I am accepting in some 'non-information' as information, but I can't think of on what conditions to throw it out right now.
You are also discarding information as non-information.
Random sound waves could be the rumbles that gives you the information that I'm hungry.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 01:53:23 [Permalink]
|
I don't like it. For the petty stuff, alright... but regarding critical decisions (which are made constantly as well) would you be comfortable knowing the "standby status" bit-stream continually fed to an ICBM would be randomly corrupted 0.1% of the time? Not me. How bout' taking a 1000-round rail of 50 calibre bullets, all but one blank, pointing it at your head, and and pulling the trigger every morning for a year? Or 0.1% of the cars sold will have brakes that fail? Compress it, sequence it, binarize it, transform it all you want, you won't come up with a "Universally Acceptable" standard. I'll stick with our conclusion.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 09:44:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I said that Human Artifacts / Organisms, were the only example of this kind of information, which vary narrowly defined to include only symbolic strings which were not ordered by any rules of thermodynamics/other uninteresting natural processes, were information dense, and were extremely non-random.
I would contend that organisms (or DNA) is in fact 'ordered' by the laws of thermodynamics / and other uninteresting natural processes (ie laws of physics). What else could it be?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ar
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 11:30:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I said that Human Artifacts / Organisms, were the only example of this kind of information, which vary narrowly defined to include only symbolic strings which were not ordered by any rules of thermodynamics/other uninteresting natural processes, were information dense, and were extremely non-random.
I would contend that organisms (or DNA) is in fact 'ordered' by the laws of thermodynamics / and other uninteresting natural processes (ie laws of physics). What else could it be?
It has to be, because the alternative is unthinkable!
Dave:
quote:
So a flat line on a heart monitor "cannot be regarded as information" that the patient's heart has stopped? Forgive me for sounding sarcastic, but millions of doctors and nurses around the world would be amazed at this revelation. That "simple, repeating pattern" is chock-full of absolutely essential information!
What I had in mind when I came up with that definition was not an all-inclusive definition for "stand-alone" information (even though I may have mislabeled it as such). It was more like a set of tests, such that if a set of data tested positive, it would be information. If it did NOT test positive, it could be either information or random data.
In cases where there is not enough data to make that determination, then whether it is noise or data is ambiguous, unless you have the context, or the "key."
In the case of the monitor flat-line, my definition would tell us nothing. It would be ambiguous. Obviously if we have the context (we know the "language" of a heartbeat), then we know it is information.
My point is - that quote would better have been originally stated by me to say:
"...a simple, repeating pattern cannot be regarded as [either] information [OR randomness], as I have defined it."
Of course, this invalidates my entire original position, which was basically a challange to "show me information that nature has created." If there is no way to tell whether "simple" data (as Dr. Mabuse gave several great examples of, effectively putting the nail in my position's coffin) is information or randomness, then we can't even begin to discuss (objectively) whether or not nature has created information! |
|
|
|
frater_memetic_fake
New Member
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 11:44:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
I said that Human Artifacts / Organisms, were the only example of this kind of information, which vary narrowly defined to include only symbolic strings which were not ordered by any rules of thermodynamics/other uninteresting natural processes, were information dense, and were extremely non-random.
I would contend that organisms (or DNA) is in fact 'ordered' by the laws of thermodynamics / and other uninteresting natural processes (ie laws of physics). What else could it be?
Evolution. (An interesting natural proccess.)
It is probably my fault for not writing careful, but what I was trying to argue was simply that evolution is a unique processes that results in a certain kind of phenomenon, which no other natural process causes.
Attempts at clarification:
The sequence of basses in DNA strictly cannot be predicted with thermodynamics/physics. The order of bases is not a property of A attaching to C (same string, not complement pairing) at lower energies, but instead the ordering is due to the phenotypic* effects produced by that ordering [1].
I am simply trying to make the case that evolutionary phenomenon are a very special subset of physical phenomenon, and that as a result produce effects which no other physical phenomenon can. The products of evolution are often accused of being designed. Planets, suns and hurricanes did not have this misconception about them. Therefore, I would contend, there is some radical difference between plants ect. and organisms. I would submit that this difference is that organism are the products of evolution, and planets are not.
Epiphenomena are best treated as being caused at their own level. Ie. while it may be the case that quarks and leptons compose atoms, and that there for, the gas laws emerge from the properties of quarks and leptons, a careful understanding of quarks and leptons by no means clearly indicates that gas laws will govern the behavior of atoms some of the time. Therefor, it can generally be said that the behavior of a gas is caused by the laws governing atomic motion, with no reference to the laws governing sub atomic partials, even though the former logically emerges from the latter. Similarly, even though it must be the case the laws which govern the motion of partials are ultimately responsible for evolution in some sense, the mechanics of evolving systems are so non-obvious that this knowledge gives us essentially no insight into the dynamics of evolution. Therefore, I regard evolution as not being a phenomenon under the discipline of physics.
[1]... and other stuff, I realize Kimura wrote a book, and this sentence is an over simplification, I think it is more readable without qualifications.
*edited for spell-checking goonery. prototypic. bah. |
| Edited by - frater_memetic_fake on 11/08/2005 13:42:47 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 12:25:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
I said that Human Artifacts / Organisms, were the only example of this kind of information, which vary narrowly defined to include only symbolic strings which were not ordered by any rules of thermodynamics/other uninteresting natural processes, were information dense, and were extremely non-random.
I would contend that organisms (or DNA) is in fact 'ordered' by the laws of thermodynamics / and other uninteresting natural processes (ie laws of physics). What else could it be?
It has to be, because the alternative is unthinkable!
No, it is not unthinkable or even unimaginable, there is just absolutely no evidence for the alternative (anything supernatural).
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 12:45:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The products of evolution are often accused of being designed. Planets, suns and hurricanes did not have this misconception about them.
Actually in the fairly recent past they were thought to be designed or gods. As recently as August some Christians thought a Hurricane was sent by God to destroy New Orleans.
quote:
the mechanics of evolving systems are so non-obvious that this knowledge gives us essentially no insight into the dynamics of evolution. Therefore, I regard evolution as not being a phenomenon under the discipline of physics.
Could you explain this further? It sounds like you are saying that since you cannot understand what drives evolution it must not be govern by physical laws. This sounds like an argument from incredulity look here.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 16:44:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by frater_memetic_fake
It is probably my fault for not writing careful, but what I was trying to argue was simply that evolution is a unique processes that results in a certain kind of phenomenon, which no other natural process causes.
The same can be said for the forming of a snowflake. That one process has a higher degree of complexity is a completely different topic, unless you are an IDist who sets an arbitrary level of complexity as a boundary in order to show that DNA needed a Designer.
Different kinds of chemicals can form their unique structures according to their chemical properties.
quote:
The sequence of basses in DNA strictly cannot be predicted with thermodynamics/physics.
That depends on the complexity of the simulation. Since there is a certain degree of randomness that work on the DNA when mutations happen, even statistical approximations becomes tenuous. Given a large (and complex) enough simulation, anything should be possible to simulate.
How about the snowflake. It is said that no snowflake is the other alike. However, if that is an urban legend or not, I haven't bothered to check out. If the structure is random, then the snowflake's unique structure couldn't strictly be predicted either.
quote:
...Therefore, I would contend, there is some radical difference between plants ect. and organisms. I would submit that this difference is that organism are the products of evolution, and planets are not.
So you're saying, by different aspects of physical laws, but by natural laws none the less?
quote:
Therefore, I regard evolution as not being a phenomenon under the discipline of physics.
Well, evolution is certainly affected by several physical laws, but the complexity of the relationships are so high that few immediate cause-and-effects are obvious.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2005 : 18:19:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by frater_memetic_fake
Don't. I don't really care. This is not a serious scientific theory, and I have no intention of making it so. Others have no doubt attacked the problem, and It doesn't interest me enough to do research on it. If you feel that I am wasting your time, don't read my post. I am largely just speculating about the nature of information in a scientific way, but not rigorously so. I have no intention of becoming rigorous. I right enough rigorous stuff, sometimes, it is just fun to speculate.
That's fine. It's just not the impression I got from your previous post (perhaps I missed something). That said,quote:
Condition 1) 99.9 is a nice strong 1/1000, or a p value of less then .001, which is above the generally accepted significants of p < .05...
A p value of 0.05 is that typically used in medicine, as a compromise between super-expensive testing with live subjects and the ability to get at "the truth" of whether a treatment works or not. Physicists tend to use 0.0001, which would be equivalent to another 9, or 99.99%. For another data point, a modem with a bit-error rate of greater than 0.000001 are typically rejected as too noisy to work with.quote:
...This is because I feel that when we find information it should not just look 'fairly not random' it should look REALLY REALLY not random, so anything that has problems passing the first test probably isn't information.
Okay, but the goals of both encryption and compression are to eliminate patterns. A strong encryption will make the original information look really really really random, despite there being information in there (one just needs the proper context).quote:
Anyway, I am simply trying to demonstrate that a through going analysis is possible. Not trying to build information theory from the ground up. These are just examples. You are not suppose to accept them as accurate representation of reality, you are suppose to accept it as a rational argument, and decide weather or not you think it is 'reasonable.'
Even as a speculative definition of "information," it should match up to information as it exists in the real world. Otherwise, you're speculating about either something else entirely, or a subset of what we know is information so small as to be applicable only rarely.quote:
Feel free to point out any unreasonable aspects.
I think I have, even with my first question to you.quote:
If you feel that we cannot distinguishes between uninteresting nonrandomness in nature, and interesting nonrandomness, you are free to do so, but I feel that there is likely a body of work out there that contradicts you. Though, I, for one, have not read any of it.
I see. I suppose, then, that my having read summaries of information theory (one previously linked) which say that indeed "information" is entirely subjective (one person's noise is another person's data) trumps your not having read anything about it.quote:
Geez, people always take it so literally when I say I am just pulling stuff out of thin air. Sheesh.
I get it now! Your use of the phrase "at random" was a pun! Okay! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
frater_memetic_fake
New Member
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 14:21:18 [Permalink]
|
Ok, Clearly I am going to be forced to make sense here. First, let me apologize for being an extraordinarily bad writer at times. Secondly, let me apologize for any bad temper I may have displayed in previous posts, it was certainly un called for. Now I will be concise.
Purpose:
To be a bit patronizing here; creationist, like children, ask interesting questions about evolution, because they don't know what not to ask. The question ar has asked, is interesting, despite a clear misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. He seems to have grasped something special about the results of evolution that is untrue of every other natural process, even though he uses this revelation to dismiss evolution as impossible. Other natural process cannot produce what I have defined as information, and, given sufficient precision, information can become a useful concept in examining evolution, especial when discussing what systems posses evolveability. It seems to me that ar had a simmilar definition in mind.
Finally, to head off some future debate, we can actually ignore some of the particulars of encryption and compression. I am discussing information as we find it in the non-human world, though clearly there is going to be some application to human information. Since in the natural world we do not expect to find things encrypted for the purpose of hiding their information, we do not need to be concerned with the fact that these definition of information will likely fail to detect encrypted information. Further more, I am not using information in the colloquial sense, so not everything we might consider information will be covered under my definition, in the same way as things that we might consider 'fitness' are ignored by the evolutionary biologist use of the term. My definition highlights a difference between natural un-evolveable systems, and natural evolveabe systems, and allows me to speculate on how these differences arise.
Rebutls:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by frater_memetic_fake
It is probably my fault for not writing careful, but what I was trying to argue was simply that evolution is a unique processes that results in a certain kind of phenomenon, which no other natural process causes.
The same can be said for the forming of a snowflake. That one process has a higher degree of complexity is a completely different topic, unless you are an IDist who sets an arbitrary level of complexity as a boundary in order to show that DNA needed a Designer.
I'm not realy sure what it is you think that I am saying, but I never referred to the formation of a snow flake as more or less 'complex' than the process of evolution. Further, I know that evolution has no drive towards 'complexity' (whatever that might be defined as), However, there is an interesting and non-trivial way that the behavior of DNA differs from a snowflake, and that is that it has the capability of producing information of the kind I have been discussing.
Further more, even if I were discussing complexity, I think it is clear that any organism has been produced by process of a completely different kind than produced a snowflake. As many creationist, and all evolutionist, are apt to point out, living organisms are the only systems in nature that we know of that have many interacting subsystems which work in concert to produce an effect, in this case the perpetuation of themselves. Maynard-Smith suggest that “the possession of organs adapted to ensure survival and reproduction” is one criterion which is useful in defining life. Organisms look designed, snowflakes do not. Meditate on this.
Interestingly only systems which can have information, as I previously specified it, can evolve. The possession of universal symbol system in combination with a means to replicate the specific symbol string are necessary prerequisite to evolution. By universal symbol system, I mean that any arbitrary string of symbols is possible within symbol space. This means that several interesting autocatalytic processes can be regarded as un-evolvable because they cannot have information. While simple autocatalitic process satisfy Darwinian criteria, they fail to evolve because information cannot accumulate in the system.
Just today I was reading some Maynard-Smith which significantly matured this concept in my mind. He proposes that hereditary information must be modular, and unlimited to allow evolution. By this he means that portions of the information can be changed while leaving the much of the remaining information completely unaffected, mike the first letter of a word might be changed and leave a sentence fairly intact. The criteria of unlimited heredity means simply that any arbitrary string of symbols is replicateable.[1]
quote:
Different kinds of chemicals can form their unique structures according to their chemical properties.
However, it is not the chemical properties that order the sequence of DNA, in fact, if it was, evolution would likely be impossible. (see previous paragraph) It is of the utmost importance to realize, that as far as the physical properties are concerned that all strands of DNA are nearly identical. (though their melting points change a little based on G-C content, and I have been told that the optical isomer of DNA has a just slightly higher energy) This allows any message we want to be written in DNA, and it will happily replicate completely ignorant of what the sequence of base pairs means.
quote:
quote:
The sequence of basses in DNA strictly cannot be predicted with thermodynamics/physics.
That depends on the complexity of the simulation. Since there is a certain degree of randomness that work on the DNA when mutations happen, even statistical approximations becomes tenuous. Given a large (and complex) enough simulation, anything should be possible to simulate.
I was not concerned with the ability to simulate evolutionary systems using physics. I am concerned with the extent to which a simulation using physics can allow us to understand evolutionary principles. A physical simulation of the formation of an ice crystal may reveal quite allot about what is going on, ie, we will understand why the crystal is the shape it is from the fundamental geometry of water molecules in a crystal. However, the geometry of nucleotide bases in a crystal of DNA does not tell us anything about why there is a TAC at a particular location in the DNA strand. Why is that TAC there? Because without it, no amino acid would be produced, the organism would die, and we would not be looking at its DNA. Look at the level of this explanation. I did not invoke physical principles in my explanation, but instead invoked evolutionary principles. DNA is most often best explained at th |
| Edited by - frater_memetic_fake on 11/08/2005 14:22:59 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 08:11:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
AH! But the snowflakes structure IS RANDOM! DNA's sequence is not. Again, I am not concerned with predictability, but explain-ability. (and of course, explanations must predict important features of the system) Snowflakes are explained at the molecular level, DNA by the principles of evolution (though molecular level effects can produce some interesting results.)
On the atomic level a snowflakes structure is not random. Water molecules freeze in a very nonrandom way. The macro structure of a snowflake is random within the framework of the specific angles that govern the crystal lattice of frozen water.
DNA is also random within the framework of it's 'crystal' structure if you will. That is why everyone is not identical. It is not possible to predict how an individual will look based on how the parents look.
Is the chemistry of life very complicated and intricate - yes. Plants and animals are incredible little chemical factories. But I still have no idea where you are going with this. What is your point?
quote:
Organisms look designed, snowflakes do not. Meditate on this.
I have returned from a deep trance and have concluded that snowflakes do in fact look designed. They are not designed, I believe, but they sure do look designed.
Do you have a point with all of this or do you just want to discuss evolution and how life is different from inorganic material?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
frater_memetic_fake
New Member
7 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2005 : 11:44:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
AH! But the snowflakes structure IS RANDOM! DNA's sequence is not. Again, I am not concerned with predictability, but explain-ability. (and of course, explanations must predict important features of the system) Snowflakes are explained at the molecular level, DNA by the principles of evolution (though molecular level effects can produce some interesting results.)
On the atomic level a snowflakes structure is not random. Water molecules freeze in a very nonrandom way. The macro structure of a snowflake is random within the framework of the specific angles that govern the crystal lattice of frozen water.
Right, I believe I should have left the impression in the mind of my read that this is what I meant, but I was certainly less precise in my articulation.
quote:
DNA is also random within the framework of it's 'crystal' structure if you will. That is why everyone is not identical. It is not possible to predict how an individual will look based on how the parents look.
Is the chemistry of life very complicated and intricate - yes. Plants and animals are incredible little chemical factories. But I still have no idea where you are going with this. What is your point?
While the randomness of a crystal of water and of DNA are similar on a physical/electrostatic/thermodynamic level, they are very different. When a statistical test is applied to the crystal domain orientation of a snow fake, if done properly, it will say 'random.' a statistical test applied to base order of DNA will not come back random. This should not surprise us, because DNA contains information, and a snowflake does not. This difference between DNA and a snowflake is mathematically precise, and immediately apparent. Evolution is the cause of the information in the DNA. Since snowflakes don't, and can't, evolve, and since evolution is the only natural process which creates information, we should not expect snowflakes to have information, even if they are viable storage medium for it (though, they would be poor one I imagine).
quote:
quote:
Organisms look designed, snowflakes do not. Meditate on this.
I have returned from a deep trance and have concluded that snowflakes do in fact look designed. They are not designed, I believe, but they sure do look designed.
Do you have a point with all of this or do you just want to discuss evolution and how life is different from inorganic material?
I have a point, and I thought I had made my point. I find it interesting that you fail to acknowledge a significant difference between the way that an organism looks designed
and the way that a snowflake looks designed. Every evolutionist whom I have ever read has utilized the concept of apparent design to discuss the end result of evolution, because it is so striking.
Dawkins - “Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation.... The explanation is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for use, chimpanzees worms oak trees and monsters from outer space. On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call simple things, such as rocks, clouds rivers galaxies and quarks.”
Organisms look like watches and snowflakes do not. meditating on this. Dawkin's doesn't say that the concept of design is useless or silly, but instead asserts that there really IS design, but no designer, hence the title 'Blind Watchmaker' not 'Fractal Organisms.'
To ignore that organisms are very fundamentally different from the rest of the natural world is to miss the explainitory power of the theory of evolution. I had no intention of making this point, taking it for granted that no one would disagree with it, so it is not in the main thrust of my argument. It is necessary to acknowledge this, however, before one begins to discuss why organisms need a special kind of explanation for their existence that snowflakes do not. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
