|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2011 : 14:08:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And you don't understand that there's a difference between atoms and molecules in an ideal gas confined to a well defined volume, and amino-acids not confined to that same volume.
You can say that the entropy of an untidy room is a metaphor for Boltzmann's experiment, and I'd agree with you. But you can't use Boltzmann's equation to calculate the entropy of that said room, because that is not was the equation was meant to do. |
Granted that I see your point on this. Also note that I have used math that contains no energy/temp in my last post to Dave. Entropy still rises.
Another thing I want to hone in on. Boltzmann died in 1906 and there have been many well-known contributors to thermodynamics since then, some using his formula in systems that do not pertain to joules/Kelvin. Schrodinger, as I note in another post was one of them.
Nowhere in the Eyre-Walker study or your linked comment on their work by James F. Crow, is it indicated that "entropy in genome" or the 2LoT has anything to do with the study. You are misrepresenting their work.
|
Of course they don't mention entropy. Why would you expect a study on mutated genes between chimp and man to discuss this? This was not a work in thermodynamics.
I took their work, expanded it into thermodynamics and calculated the entropy based on the mutated genes they found in the genome.
In each instance, the scientist had to make experiments that could verify, or importantly falsify the certain instance in which they attempted to apply SLOT. The result in Boltzmann's case is the Boltzmann Constant which apply to the specific case which he was testing.
|
If you will google that formula you will find it being used in MANY systems other than his specific case.
| Then explain Ring Species. It/they violates his definition of species. As usual, nature (and life) is more complex than people imagine. Being a defender of the scientific method, he'd roll in his grave if he knew you were quoting him in defending ID. |
Many would roll over in their grave if they knew I was using their stuff to defend ID...<:0)
How can you be sure that it NEVER collapses when it's NOT being observed?
I want to see some evidence of your assertion. |
Simply because it shows a solid where the matter hits the plate in the back of the box when it is being observed and a wave when it is not. Are you having trouble understanding the experiments?
| So you admit that you don't have a problem misrepresenting their work. Just like you drew the unfounded conclusion that I was a follower of the Gaia hypothesis and then went on to burn strawmen based on that. |
No, I didn't misrepresent their work in the least bit. I simply based my work on their work.
They weren't studying all mutations, only harmful ones. If they had studied beneficial ones too, they may have found those to be more plentiful.
By the way, what was the criteria for measuring negative, neutral, and positive mutations? |
You can read the abstract and the interpretation of the study. I referenced both.
| That's your unfounded conclusion. But the scientists who actually made the study didn't draw the same conclusions, because they had an intimate understanding of the data. |
No, that is my conclusion founded on the result of a scientific study. And how can you conclude that they did not come to the same conclusion? I simply used the data they discovered and posted in the paper???
The standard panspermia hypothesis is that life originated elsewhere and seeded here. But if IDists want to use Punctuated Equilibrium as an argument for ID, then they also have to admit that the Designer has been here thousands of times throughout the ages, tweaking the genome over and over again until they produced Homo Sapien. A Designer powerful enough to tweak our genome like that, on a global scale, must have a power nothing short of a God, so I can't see how even Panspermians you refer to can be considered atheists. They do have a God, they just avoid naming it.
Are you a panspermian? Or Christian, like Tipler?
|
Hmmm......You need to study panspermia a little more in detail as I have not ran across any with religious beliefs. They don't buy this seeding as coming from a god, they argue whether it was comets or astronauts.
Am I panspermian or Christian. Neither in totality, but probably closer to Tipler as I believe in a God constructed of intelligent quantum mechanics. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 14:23:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I'm not going to post anymore because you fail to comment on them, to address them; and just blow someone like Richard Feynman off with one liners.
|
Richard Feynman was a theoretical physicist, not a molecular biologist.  |
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. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 14:25:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
It seems you are almost stating that there is intelligence in random mutations. HOW would a random mutation hook up a chain saw without a chain to the pedals of a bicycle. |
By performing enough random mutations until it happens.
|
But the chain saw was the system beneficial to the organism. Why would selection want to select for a useless cellular bicycle.... |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 14:37:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
I'm not going to post anymore because you fail to comment on them, to address them; and just blow someone like Richard Feynman off with one liners.
|
Richard Feynman was a theoretical physicist, not a molecular biologist.
|
So what. You think it better that a molecular biologist explain thermodynamics (physics) than a theoretical physicist? Sometimes you don't make sense, Doc..... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 15:29:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
But what you fail to understand is that it is common to use S = K log W strictly to calculate statistical mechanics while disregarding joules/kelvin. |
I don't "fail to understand" any such thing. I'm still waiting for you to justify the numbers you chose as inputs.| You once made reference to my debate with Pixie on another forum (years ago). Pixie is a PhD physical chemist and it was he that convinced me we could use that formula without energy/temp consideration. A little research at the time proved him to be correct. |
More anecdotes.But,I could have gone just as easily, and more simply with R. Feynman's: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
IOW: W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
S = logW
S = 7.3 |
So you think that the total number of microstates consistent with "being human" is 1.71×107? Why does the number of deleterious mutations per generation come into that calculation at all? Shouldn't all "being human" microstates include all possible deleterious mutations that don't outright kill the organism or result in sterile offspring?But, I will go with the greats of physics any day over someone I meet on the Internet.
Erwin Schrodinger mused: “Every process, event, happening—call it what you will: in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase in entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy—or as you might say, produces positive entropy—and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death.” {From Schrodinger’s book, What is Life? Chapter 8}
Schrodinger used a take off of the exact same formula that I used: –entropy = K log 1/D where K is Boltzmann’s constant and D is the atomistic state (arrangement) of the cell.
If he did, then I can. |
How did Schrödinger measure D? Did he include negative mutations? How about beneficial mutations? Of course, Schrödinger didn't know how to measure either one, since DNA was undecipherable until after his death.| Any way we go, entropy is still rising. |
Since you haven't bothered with measuring any beneficial mutations, it certainly does seem impossible for a comparison.| So, you would still lose the argument that the genome has ordered from man's walk from chimp. It has not. It has disordered. |
I'm still waiting for you to support your argument.| Really, do try to keep up. They all use different constants and units because they mean different things. "Statistical thermodynamics" is not a synonym for "information theory." |
Yes it is. See, here is a perfect example of someone just not having studied the field enough to be competent in it. |
They're only synonyms if "LEGO bricks" is a synonym for "childrens' toy." You might consider studying English.| How did Boltzmann define the entropy his famous formula calculates? He stated that entropy is the opposite of information. |
And?| That is exactly what we are calculating in the human genome when we note an entropic rise: an information loss. |
But you haven't calculated information loss. You've used a measure of negative mutations without any regard to how much information any of them carry.| DNA--Genes are simply organic information... |
But not the only biological information.| ...and it is when enough of this information is lost that the population enters mutational meltdown/error catastrophe and is in danger of extinction. |
Which hasn't been shown to be true.| It is both: A definition implying a law because it 1) defines a species... |
It is just one definition among several.| ...and 2) states that two non-species cannot interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring. |
No, that's the definition. We call things "species" which cannot interbreed sucessfully. "Species" is just a label, not a functional specification.| That kind of puts the notion to bed that chimps intermingled their genes with something else to evolve man. |
Bwaahahahahahahahaha! I don't know what you think you're arguing against, but it certainly is not any evolutionary theory.| What were they measuring in that video? They were simply trying to observe what the electron was doing when it entered the slits. |
You cannot "observe" (which is a synonym for "measure" in QM) any particle without changing the particle. It is impossible to have interaction-free observations.| You really need to hone up on the double slit experiments. Info is all over the Web about them. Many have been done and they ALL consistently show that it takes a conscious observer to collapse the wave function. |
No, they don't. Quote Heisenberg or Feynman or Schödinger or any other Nobel prize-winning quantum physicist saying that the "observer" must be "conscious" or "intelligent."
You've fallen for a cartoon version of QM which gives people simple anthropomorphic answers to complex questions.| See, this is the difference between my science and your "science." Mine is based on scientific experiment... |
Yours is based on wishful thinking.| ...and yours is accomplished by looking at rocks, noting that they look "funny" and scientific conclusions are then derived from that observation. You have no empirical experimentation to show at all. I do. |
Where is your "empirical experimentation" that shows that an observer must be "conscious" or "intelligent." You haven't shown any so far.| I stipulated that ICSs require a designer, not that a tree cannot fall on a danged rock without a designer....LOL....Man, are you ever stretching here. |
No, you're just back-pedaling to save face rather than admit that you misspoke.| No, so you are stating once again that the only way to detect design is to talk to the design engineer? How then, if your sweater has lost it's tag and you don't know what company produced it, could you ever show design in it? |
I'm not the one claiming to "detect" design in a scientific fashion. Do your own homework.| Name one theory within ID, by your previously stated definition of "theory." |
Lose information (such as info not fixed as in a book or CD) will degrade over time unless energy is added into the system to stabilize it. |
How does that explain anything? But nevermind that, follow your own definition: show me the peer-reviewed papers and consensus that's been created which show that what you've stated is a "theory of ID."Not until you're finished with your turn.| This is silly. Man is immensely more complex than the protist you claim him to have evolved from. The order I'm referring to is more genes, more information programmed to foment thought, consciousness, moral values...... |
You haven't provided a method with which to measure this "order" you speak of.| Even in man's relatively recent walk from chimp, we would expect the genome to show this order thus allowing for the creation of doctors, lawyers, carpenters and business people from monkeys. |
"We" would expect it? Why? Do you think chimps are less "ordered" than humans?| Guess what, that is not what the study shows. Instead, it shows good information being deleted at a rate of 1.6 mutating genes per generation over a period of about 6 million years. |
No, it showed no such thing. You'll have to define what "good" information is, and how it differs from normal, everyday information.| What science shows is not always what we want it to show. But we have to live with it. |
Says the man in denial of what science shows. How ironic.| Statistical mechanics has not a thing to do with temperature. |
Except for that inconvenient "joules/Kelvin" part.| Again, you refuse to enter even the early 1900s in this science and this is simply ignorance on your part. |
Well, you're certainly not helping.| Please reread all the references I posted to you on this. I'm not going to post anymore because you fail to comment on them, to address them; and just blow someone like Richard Feynman off with one liners. |
Again with the misdirection. Most of the people you've quoted are dead, and so I'm stuck talking to you. But when you get criticized, you try to deflect the criticism off you, and onto the dead people. It's a transparent ploy on your part to avoid engaging in an actual discussion, and to maintain your dogmatism.| It's still a spot measurement of the per-generation "entropy." You used the 1.6 mutations-per-generation number and claimed a trend. Can't say whether next generation it will be more or less, now can you? Of course, worse than that, you came up with a result that is utterly meaningless. And the fact that you are unable to expound upon the meaning tells me that you don't even know. |
Me? LOL, you didn't read the piece by the interpreter of the study, Prof. James Crow of U of Nebraska? |
As I said, you can't explain it.| That is where I got the figures. |
I know.| You have attributed so much science to me that other scientists have contributed that if people believed you, I would be famous. |
No, I'm addressing you because you're here in our forums. I wouldn't insult the fine researchers you quote by attributing any of their actual science to you.| And see above, I expound on this. |
But you haven't. You've made declaratory statements without support.| However, remember that SLOT is a tendency. It is irrelevant if the next successive generation will be more or less mutations. What matters is the trend, the tendency. |
But you still haven't calculated a trend.| No, I don't remember positing a designer poofing anything into existence. I certainly don't believe automobile companies poof out new cars. |
Really? There are only two options under consideration: an unintelligent natural process, or poofing. Since car companies do not rely upon evolution to make their products, they must be "poofed" into existence from a biological perspective.| No need to be redundant as I discuss this above. Read the Schrodinger quote. Heck, read the book. It's good reading for us curious types and I think it is online. |
I'll get to the 66 year-old book eventually.| No, it says that the rest of the genome depended upon the absence of that mutation for viability. |
That's like saying that my entire existence depends upon the absence of a knife presently penetrating my heart, a gun putting a bullet through my brain and getting hit in the head by an anvil while walking down the street. |
No, your continued existence depends upon those thing, along with a gazillion other contingent events not occurring to you. Someone who gets stabbed to death before successful reproduction doesn't count in an evolutionary sense.| Therefore, me, the knife, the gun, bullet and anvil comprise a thermodynamic system. |
No, they don't. That's your contention, not mine. You are the one claiming that "the genome" can be considered a thermodynamic system, so you need to include all the parts of that system, which includes murderers and anvils and tsunamis and asteroids.Come on, Dave. What kind of logic is that??  |
Once again, you attribute one of your ideas to me and then laugh at me for it. You really, really need to learn self-awareness. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 15:31:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
But the chain saw was the system beneficial to the organism. Why would selection want to select for a useless cellular bicycle.... |
So the only thing that's useful is a chainsaw? You should inform every manufacturer of other items that their products are worthless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 16:45:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
But the chain saw was the system beneficial to the organism. Why would selection want to select for a useless cellular bicycle.... |
So the only thing that's useful is a chainsaw? You should inform every manufacturer of other items that their products are worthless.
|
Yeah, man. The only thing useful at all in life is a chain saw. LMAO, how you come up with these inane comments and seem to miss EVERY point I make is beyond me. But I'll let you contact the other manufacturers.....dang paperwork. I just hate it..... |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 16:56:06 [Permalink]
|
| That is exactly what we are calculating in the human genome when we note an entropic rise: an information loss. |
Are you sure about that?
Information and Entropy
Now that I've got a bit of background and origins done, it's time to get to some of the fun stuff.
As I said yesterday, both of the big branches of information theory have a concept of entropy. While the exact presentations differ, because they're built on somewhat different theoretical foundations, the basic meaning of entropy in both branches is pretty much the same. I'm going to stick with the terminology of the Kolmogorov-Chaitin branch, but the basic idea is the same in either.
In K-C theory, we talk about the information content of strings. A string is an ordered sequence of characters from a fixed alphabet. It doesn't really matter what alphabet you choose; the point of this kind of theory isn't to come up with a specific number describing the complexity of a string, but to be able to talk about what information means in a formal algorithmic sense.
The K-C definition of the entropy of a string is the total quantity of information encoded in that string.
Here's where it gets fun.
Another way of saying exactly the same thing is that the entropy of a string is a measure of the randomness of the string.
Structured strings are structured precisely because they contain redundancy - and redundancy does not add information.
Which string has more information: "XXXXYYYYY" or "4X5Y"? They have the same amount. One is a lot smaller than the other. But they contain the same amount of information.
Here's a third way of saying exactly the same thing: the entropy of a string is the length of the smallest compressed string that can be decompressed into the original.
Here's a better example. Go back and look at the first two paragraphs of yesterday's post. It took 514 characters.
Here's the same information, compressed (using gzip) and then made readable using a unix utility called uuencode:
M'XL(")E8$$0``VIU;FL`19$Q=JPP#$7[6#8804;7KIN',`M+]#8804;HHLPH``)\8BMOPY
M[#Y/GCDG#
MLY2EI8$9H5GLX=*R(_+ZP/,-5-1#\HRJNT`77@LL,MZD,"H7LSUKDW3@$#V2
MH(KTO$Z^$%CN1Z>3L*J^?6ZW?^Y2+10;\+SOO'OC"/;7T5QA%987SY02I3I$
MLKW"W,VZ-(J$E"[$;'2KYI^\-_L./3BW.+WF3XE8)#8804;@D8X^U59DQ7IA*F+X/
MM?I!RJ*%FE%])Z+EXE+LSN*,P$YNX5/P,OCVG;IK=5_K&CK6J7%'+5M,R&J]
M95*W6O5EI%G^K)8B/XV#L=:5_`=5ELP#Y#\UJ??>[[DI=J''*2D];K_F230"
$`@(`````
`
That's only 465 characters; and if I didn't have to encode it to stop it from crashing your web-browser, it would only have been 319 characters. Those characters are a lot more random than the original - so they have a higher information density. The closer we get to the shortest possible compressed length, the higher the information density gets.
Actually, I'm lying slightly; there's an additional factor that needs to be considered in K-C theory.
Remember that K-C comes from the foundational mathematics of computer science, something called recursive function theory. We're talking about strings being processed algorithmically by a program. So really, we get to talk about programs that generate strings. So it's not just strings: you have a program and a data string. Really, you measure information content of a string as the total size of the smallest pairing of program and data that generates that string. But for most purposes, that doesn't make that much difference: the combination of the program and the data can be encoded into a string.
In the two examples above, the program to follow is implied by the contents of the string; if we wanted to really model it precisely, we'd need to include the programs:
*
For the string "XXXXYYYYY", the program is roughly:
while there are more characters in the data:
read a character
output the character that you read
end
*
For the string "4X5Y", the program is roughly:
while there are more characters in the data:
read a number n from the data
read a character c from the data
output c n times
end
Now, specifics aside: the definitions I gave earlier are pretty much correct in both K-C and Shannon information theory: information content is proportional to randomness is proportional to minimum compressed length.
So - what happens if I take a string in very non-compressed format (like, say, an uncompressed digitized voice) and send it over a noisy phone line? Am I gaining information, or losing information?
The answer is: gaining information. Introducing randomness into the string is adding information.
"AAAABBBB" contains less information than "AAAABxBB".
The way this is used to refute bozos who claim things like "You can't create information" should be obvious. |
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 17:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
LMAO, how you come up with these inane comments and seem to miss EVERY point I make is beyond me. |
I'm not missing your points at all, I'm criticizing them, and aptly so. That you can evade all discussion instead of actually supporting your contentions is a skill that might serve you well in the U.S. Senate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Powerwise
Troll
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 22:14:30 [Permalink]
|
Post deleted for grossly offensive language and because, you know...
Kil |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2011 : 22:18:31 [Permalink]
|
It's about time to flush this turd, isn't it? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2011 : 22:53:40 [Permalink]
|
| I guess Powerwise didn't like my warning. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 00:20:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
IOW: W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7 |
Heh. It just dawned on me what this really means. Jerry calculates that there are only 1.71×107 microstates consistent with being human, but there are 6.89 billion people alive today, so it means that (on average) there are almost 403 genetically identical people alive for each microstate, and that number is only going up.
Twins: getting less special, every day. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 04:02:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Richard Feynman was a theoretical physicist, not a molecular biologist.
|
So what. You think it better that a molecular biologist explain thermodynamics (physics) than a theoretical physicist? Sometimes you don't make sense, Doc.....
|
Since biological entities aren't isolated systems, calculating increasing entropy as per SLOT is a meaningless activity.
|
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. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 06:41:16 [Permalink]
|
The stupidity of Intelligent Design.
Who sez a broken chainsaw is useless? If you are stupid enough and wealthy, you can do anything with it -- can you imagine trying to start that contraption?
ID fails again!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
