|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2011 : 07:08:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Who sez a broken chainsaw is useless?
|
Doorstop, canoe anchor, light aircraft nose or tail ballast, frightening kiddies at hallowe'en, conversation piece at a wedding head table, cheap substitute for a dumbbell, the list goes on!  |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 07:59:09 [Permalink]
|
JerryB said:
| 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. |
Ok, you have proven that you are capable of saying increasingly retarded things. I wasn't sure you could top some of the things you had previously said, but somehow you have. It will be interesting to see just how retarded you actually are, so please, keep going. You have your work cut out for you if you want to top the "the sun is an iron sphere" guy, but as of right now I am convinced you are in the same league as he is! I bet if you try, you can at least compete with him.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 11:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
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. |
You didn't answer my question.
If the panspermians are IDists and not Darwinians, then where does all complexity come from? During the ~4.3Gyears the Earth has been here, the Designer has been tweaking the genome of all living things. Without leaving any trace at all except in the genome (for IDists to find). Such power must surely be miraculous!
If it was astronauts, who designed the astronauts? You have an infinite regression game here... That's a pointless game with I do not intend to play. You fail.
| Then explain Ring Species. It/they violates his definition of species. |
Many would roll over in their grave if they knew I was using their stuff to defend ID...<:0) |
You're evading. Ring Species violates Ernst Mayr's definition of species. Your understanding of biology is so poor, I can't see how you can speak on matters of biology with authority. I can safely declare all your "work" on SLOT in genome bunk.
|
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 - 01/02/2011 : 12:17:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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? |
No, I think you have your understanding of the whole discussion screwed up in your head from the study itself, to Crow's interpretation of it, to my taking those figures into thermodynamics.
You are still stuck on the adage that microstates define the macrostate. This is true and I have agreed with you more than once on this premise (in fact, I think I was the first to state this, but it doesn't matter).
Where your logic begins to dissipate is when you posit that the human is the macrostate in my math. It is not. It is not just genes that comprise the human macrostate, but DNA, RNA, all kinds of cells from white corpuscles to red blood cells, epithelial cells and stem cells containing all kinds of organelles and I could make a list as long as this forum on what comprises a human.
The macrostate is the genome. In fact, the macrostate is the area of the genome studied by Eyer-Walker and Keightly. Nothing more.
Therefore, your question above is simply moot.
| 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. |
Schrodinger was not studying genes.......Watson and Crick had not discovered the double helix at that time. He was studying increased entropy in the human body and particularly in the cell. You know how we all grow old and die? That too, is an entropic process. And I don't remember how he calculated D, but had he calculated D correctly, he would have used combinatorials as I did.
| Since you haven't bothered with measuring any beneficial mutations, it certainly does seem impossible for a comparison. |
I have not measured ANY mutations. Why do you keep implying it was me that did this? But beneficial mutations are so rare that they are irrelevant to a study like this (IMHO). The very nature of SLOT should tell you this.
But it is the deleterious mutations in this study that alarms the interpreter because he feels they may even be greater than the study estimated should there have been mutations that increase fitness. Crow states: "If there have been mutations that increase fitness, they would also cause the number of deleterious mutations to be underestimated. A less conservative, and probably more realistic, estimate doubles the value, giving 3 new deleterious mutations per person per generation.
What's the significance? Every deleterious mutation must eventually be eliminated from the population by premature death or reduced relative reproductive success, a 'genetic death'. That implies three genetic deaths per person! Why aren't we extinct?"
| They're only synonyms if "LEGO bricks" is a synonym for "childrens' toy." You might consider studying English. |
My point was that entropy is the opposite of information.
| 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. |
It would be impossible to calculate an information loss quantitatively. And why would anyone want to? My objective was to determine if entropy was rising as my observation suggested (observation: 98% of previously existing populations are now extinct)
| No, that's the definition. We call things "species" which cannot interbreed sucessfully. "Species" is just a label, not a functional specification. |
Which brings us right back to my point: Chimps can only interbreed with chimps. The notion that they could have interbred with anything else in order to mingle genes and evolve humans is just scientifically silly.
| 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. |
OK. Maybe a stretch, but I'll give you this one because you are at least coming around to admit that an observer changes the behavior of the particle (We have only known this experimentally for 100 years or so).
| 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." |
I'll research this later. But first I want you to define the term "unconscious observer" so I'll know what you are talking about. What is that, a freaking rock or something?
| You've fallen for a cartoon version of QM which gives people simple anthropomorphic answers to complex questions. |
Nonsense, I've lassoed in the science of Heisenberg, Bohr, Max Born, wheeler, Tipler and others and shown how nicely it all fits together in a paper. Nothing more, nothing less.
ALL of this is hard, peer-reviewed science-no theology--no philosophy. I did note in the paper that I call this pocket of QM, God. But I also noted that you don't have to.
| No, you're just back-pedaling to save face rather than admit that you misspoke. |
I am intellectually honest. Do you want me to admit that a tree can
fall on a rock and make a potential lever? OK, I suppose. But you have to take that further and show me how this "machine" could operate without intelligence.
This system doesn't function at all until intelligence assigns it a function and decides to use it as a lever. Same with your bridge.
Is a hammer laying in a tool box an ICS? Of course not, it has no function at all until I pick it up and assign it one. So your examples require intelligence in there somewhere to function at all, will you agree with that?
| I'm not the one claiming to "detect" design in a scientific fashion. Do your own homework. |
No homework for me here. Were you not the one who stated something to the effect that things we know to be designed are always designed by humans. So you don't think your sweater is designed? And if you do, how do you know?
| 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." |
That should have been "loose" information--typo. And that means that in systems that are not fixed, EXAMPLE OF LOOSE: randomly mutating genes in genomes--that information will degrade over time. But you really need a paper to support this? Sure:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf
Now, your turn. Show me one theory in Darwinism that can be refuted.
| You haven't provided a method with which to measure this "order" you speak of. |
Of course I have. The order/disorder is called entropy and I have calculated it for you. Need a link back to the math?
| "We" would expect it? Why? Do you think chimps are less "ordered" than humans? |
I would think so. I don't know any Chimp Chiropractors.
| No, it showed no such thing. You'll have to define what "good" information is, and how it differs from normal, everyday information. |
Depends on the system we are discussing. In this case genomes, good information could be defined as genes that benefit the viability and functionality of the organism in it's environment. The inverse being vice versa.
| 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. |
Depressing, isn't it.....<:0) The deal is that I quote science from the greats of science and some of them are, yes.....dead. But ya know what? Their science still works today in the lab just as it did when they were alive.
One of your debate tactics is to take the science I present you, pretend it came from me, then attack me. That's OK, I use a good Red Herring from time to time, so I recognize them when I see them and turn them back on you.
You must admit that you seem to be having some trouble addressing their science.
| But you still haven't calculated a trend. |
I don't need to. They did this for us in the paper and in the study interpretation:
"we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation."
| 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. |
Nah.....there is another option. That would be the one that design engineers espouse via quantum mechanics wherein the microstates are designed to result in a given macrostate. No poofs or magic here. Just science. Of course, this requires intelligence and you just don't have that in the natural processes.
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.
|
Just attacking your logic. Nothing personal. |
| Edited by - JerryB on 01/02/2011 13:01:19 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 12:27:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
| 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. |
|
Of course, we haven't really been discussing Shannon Entropy in this discussion, but I guess it is applicable.
And I would simply beg to differ with this blogger (You did know that this is blog and not a published paper?)
In any case, he states in his writings what Shannon posited:
"Shannon called the information content of a signal it's entropy, because he saw a similarity between his information entropy and thermodynamic entropy: in a communicating system, entropy never decreases: it increases until the capacity of the channel is reached, and then it stays content."
I'm afraid that is the way it is. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 12:57:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You didn't answer my question.
If the panspermians are IDists and not Darwinians, then where does all complexity come from? During the ~4.3Gyears the Earth has been here, the Designer has been tweaking the genome of all living things. Without leaving any trace at all except in the genome (for IDists to find). Such power must surely be miraculous!
If it was astronauts, who designed the astronauts? You have an infinite regression game here... That's a pointless game with I do not intend to play. You fail.
|
Huh? Why are you asking me all this stuff about panspermia after I have already told you I am not one and do not support virtually any of their core beliefs?
I don't believe it WAS an astronaut so why would I debate you on that?
You can research Brig Klyce:
http://www.panspermia.org/neodarw.htm
He seems a leading panspermian on the Web today. John Hoyle was one, Crick of Watson and Crick was one. I'm sorry. Other than I know that they believe initial organisms were designed that is all I can tell you about them.
| You're evading. Ring Species violates Ernst Mayr's definition of species. Your understanding of biology is so poor, I can't see how you can speak on matters of biology with authority. I can safely declare all your "work" on SLOT in genome bunk. |
Very well, thank you.... .......But are you not even going to explain how this example violates the definition of species that colleges teache in bio 101? Just take your word for it.....gotcha.. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 13:06:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
| No, that's the definition. We call things "species" which cannot interbreed successfully. "Species" is just a label, not a functional specification. |
Which brings us right back to my point: Chimps can only interbreed with chimps. The notion that they could have interbred with anything else in order to mingle genes and evolve humans is just scientifically silly. |
Do you know what is even sillier? That you actually believe your statement about chimps interbreeding is an accurate description of Evolution. It's one of those idiotic statements we expect to hear from christian creationists. That's why I don't believe you when you say you're neither creationist nor christian. If you are not currently one, then you must have been at one point, because your total lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of evolution are typically found among that kind of people.
| 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. |
OK. Maybe a stretch, |
A stretch?
Are you kidding me? It's one of the fundamentals in Quantum Mechanics.
| No, you're just back-pedaling to save face rather than admit that you misspoke. |
I am intellectually honest. Do you want me to admit that a tree can
fall on a rock and make a potential lever? OK, I suppose. But you have to take that further and show me how this "machine" could operate without intelligence.
This system doesn't function at all until intelligence assigns it a function and decides to use it as a lever. Same with your bridge. |
Does a bacteria have intelligence?
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 13:21:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
That should have been "loose" information--typo. And that means that in systems that are not fixed, EXAMPLE OF LOOSE: randomly mutating genes in genomes--that information will degrade over time. But you really need a paper to support this? Sure:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf
|
The Bell System Technical Journal was an in-house journal for Bell Labs.
|
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 - 01/02/2011 : 13:31:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Do you know what is even sillier? That you actually believe your statement about chimps interbreeding is an accurate description of Evolution. It's one of those idiotic statements we expect to hear from christian creationists. That's why I don't believe you when you say you're neither creationist nor christian. If you are not currently one, then you must have been at one point, because your total lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of evolution are typically found among that kind of people. |
Fine. Then I will be whatever you want me to be, Doc. So from now on you can consider me a Catholic Priest from Hoboken, NJ...LOL
But, I would think one would have to believe that Chimps somehow intermingled genes with something else. I've already shown you through a scientific study that it could not have happened via mutations. So what do you think caused this, Darwinian magic?
Please tell us how it happened.
A stretch?
Are you kidding me? It's one of the fundamentals in Quantum Mechanics. |
No, I'm not kidding you. To suggest that an observation is a measurement is a stretch. You don't believe I can look at you without also measuring your arm or something?
Does a bacteria have intelligence?
|
Most definitely!!  |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 13:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
That should have been "loose" information--typo. And that means that in systems that are not fixed, EXAMPLE OF LOOSE: randomly mutating genes in genomes--that information will degrade over time. But you really need a paper to support this? Sure:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf
|
The Bell System Technical Journal was an in-house journal for Bell Labs.
|
OK.......and.........?? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 14:33:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Do you know what is even sillier? That you actually believe your statement about chimps interbreeding is an accurate description of Evolution. It's one of those idiotic statements we expect to hear from christian creationists. |
Fine.
<snip>
But, I would think one would have to believe that Chimps somehow intermingled genes with something else. |
You have been told several times now that this is not what current evolutionary says about origin of Homo Sapien and Pan Bonobo. You keep building the same strawman over and over again. Don Quixote would have been proud of you. You're just as delusional as he was.
| I've already shown you through a scientific study that it could not have happened via mutations. |
No you haven't, that's just more delusions on your part.
| So what do you think caused this, Darwinian magic? |
No, evolution. Darwinian magic(tm) is a figment of creationists' imagination, possibly brought on by the effects of serious brain damage due to self-inflicted brainwashing of christian dogma.
| Please tell us how it happened. |
You don't know? If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101?
A stretch?
Are you kidding me? It's one of the fundamentals in Quantum Mechanics. |
No, I'm not kidding you. To suggest that an observation is a measurement is a stretch. You don't believe I can look at you without also measuring your arm or something? |
Now, this is prima facie evidence you know jack-shit about Quantum Mechanics. If you can't tell a human arm from an electron, there must be something more fundamentally wrong with you.
Does a bacteria have intelligence?
|
Most definitely!!
|
...
|
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 - 01/02/2011 : 15:34:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You have been told several times now that this is not what current evolutionary says about origin of Homo Sapien and Pan Bonobo. You keep building the same strawman over and over again. Don Quixote would have been proud of you. You're just as delusional as he was. |
Do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional? Does it not occur to you that people are diverse and opinions can vary without any degree of intellectual dishonesty on the part of any party?
You have accused me more than once of building strawmen, yet you have been asked more than once to bring an argument on how homo sapiens (Yes, were you in my biology class, I would have docked you for thinking that the Latin term sapiens is singular when spelled sapien--it is not) walked from a monkey. You simply refuse to do so, therefore I assume you don't have one.
What is it you want from me? You have yet to bring an argument we can discuss, much less one in which I have to resort to logical fallacy to refute.
| No you haven't, that's just more delusions on your part. |
LOL....There you go again. You need to learn to debate. How can you say I did not post those studies when you know I did? You don't remember this abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html
And the interpretation of it:
http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/geral/007.htm
Or maybe it is the interpretation you disagree with:
"Of these mutations, we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically."
With you coming back with yet another "you're delusional" I would have no idea what point you are trying to make or how to respond to it. Attack the argument and the evidence presented not the messenger. That's the only way you will ever win a debate.
No, evolution. Darwinian magic(tm) is a figment of creationists' imagination, possibly brought on by the effects of serious brain damage due to self-inflicted brainwashing of christian dogma. |
YAWN......This is your answer to the challenge to show some evidence.....ANYTHING.....to pose a credible scenario concerning a mechanism in which man could have walked from monkey?
LMAO.........I want YOUR argument. Be honest. Do you have one at all?
| If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101? |
BAHAHAhahahah.....There is no such thing as Evolution 101....This tells me you have never had a formal course in your life. LOL
Now, this is prima facie evidence you know jack-shit about Quantum Mechanics. If you can't tell a human arm from an electron, there must be something more fundamentally wrong with you.
|
Hahaha......Great debate point. I would have no idea how to overcome the logic and almost Einsteinian brillience that such a statement conveys to our intellectual conversation.
Keep it up, you are close to winning some major point in ALL the arguments you never made.
I'll say this much, one more post like this from you--one devoid of all intellectual content will be considered trolling and you will be talking to yourself.
Thanks for the post |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 15:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
No, I think you have your understanding of the whole discussion screwed up in your head from the study itself, to Crow's interpretation of it, to my taking those figures into thermodynamics.
You are still stuck on the adage that microstates define the macrostate. This is true and I have agreed with you more than once on this premise (in fact, I think I was the first to state this, but it doesn't matter).
Where your logic begins to dissipate is when you posit that the human is the macrostate in my math. It is not. It is not just genes that comprise the human macrostate, but DNA, RNA, all kinds of cells from white corpuscles to red blood cells, epithelial cells and stem cells containing all kinds of organelles and I could make a list as long as this forum on what comprises a human.
The macrostate is the genome. In fact, the macrostate is the area of the genome studied by Eyer-Walker and Keightly. Nothing more. |
But W is the total number of microstates consistent with a macrostate. Your calculation used the per-generation mutation rate, and the total number of bases studied by Eyer-Walker and Keightly minus the per-generation mutation rate. So 1.71×107 is the total number of microstates consistent with a single generation (since you used the per-generation rate multiplied by one), assuming (incorrectly) that the deleterious single-point mutations could have occurred anywhere within the tiny portion of the genome studied in 1999 with equal probability.
Your premise is still incorrect, you're still taking a spot measurement and claiming a trend, and you're trying to extrapolate to the whole genome from a small sample.| Therefore, your question above is simply moot. |
Perhaps, but that doesn't magically erase the other criticisms.| 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. |
Schrodinger was not studying genes.......Watson and Crick had not discovered the double helix at that time. He was studying increased entropy in the human body and particularly in the cell. You know how we all grow old and die? That too, is an entropic process. And I don't remember how he calculated D, but had he calculated D correctly, he would have used combinatorials as I did. |
No, he was much smarter than you. His footnote to physicists is important, and he is pretty much saying in that chapter that life is characterized by negatively entropic processes.| Since you haven't bothered with measuring any beneficial mutations, it certainly does seem impossible for a comparison. |
I have not measured ANY mutations. |
I know.| Why do you keep implying it was me that did this? |
Saying that you have not measured anything doesn't imply that you did. Again, you need to learn Englich.| But beneficial mutations are so rare that they are irrelevant to a study like this (IMHO). |
Evidence, please.| The very nature of SLOT should tell you this. |
The very nature of an organism should tell you that SLOT doesn't tell us anything about it genome, since living creatures (and their genomes) are open systems.But it is the deleterious mutations in this study that alarms the interpreter because he feels they may even be greater than the study estimated should there have been mutations that increase fitness. Crow states: "If there have been mutations that increase fitness, they would also cause the number of deleterious mutations to be underestimated. A less conservative, and probably more realistic, estimate doubles the value, giving 3 new deleterious mutations per person per generation.
What's the significance? Every deleterious mutation must eventually be eliminated from the population by premature death or reduced relative reproductive success, a 'genetic death'. That implies three genetic deaths per person! Why aren't we extinct?" |
And then he goes on to answer that question.| They're only synonyms if "LEGO bricks" is a synonym for "childrens' toy." You might consider studying English. |
My point was that entropy is the opposite of information. |
Go back and read Shannon again: entropy is information. Randomness is maximal information and maximal entropy.| Which brings us right back to my point: Chimps can only interbreed with chimps. The notion that they could have interbred with anything else in order to mingle genes and evolve humans is just scientifically silly. |
That's why evolutionary biology suggests no such thing: it's a silly strawman that you and the creationists share.| 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. |
OK. Maybe a stretch... |
There's nothing stretchy about it: it's standard QM.| ...but I'll give you this one because you are at least coming around to admit that an observer changes the behavior of the particle (We have only known this experimentally for 100 years or so). |
I've never said anything different. I've said that all observations change the particle, by collapsing the wave function. You claim that only observers who are conscious and/or intelligent do so. You're wrong in at least two ways, as already discussed.| I'll research this later. |
So you don't know that anyone but Tipler ever suggested that observers need be conscious or intelligent.| But first I want you to define the term "unconscious observer" so I'll know what you are talking about. What is that, a freaking rock or something? |
Every interaction between particles collapses the wave function (which is a measurement, an observation), including interactions between completely unconscious and unintelligent particle detectors.| Nonsense, I've lassoed in the science of Heisenberg, Bohr, Max Born, wheeler, Tipler and others and shown how nicely it all fits together in a paper. Nothing more, nothing less. |
You've done nothing more than add the adjective "conscious" or "intelligent" to the word "observer," in the footsteps of Tipler.| ALL of this is hard, peer-reviewed science... |
But it's not. Tipler, Chopra, Capra and other new-age woo-meisters are the only ones who insist that a QM observer need be conscious and/or intelligent, and they haven't demonstrated that, anywhere. They just make the same wrong assumption you do.| I am intellectually honest. Do you want me to admit that a tree can fall on a rock and make a potential lever? OK, I suppose. But you have to take that further and show me how this "machine" could operate without intelligence. |
You're kidding, right? All that needs to happen is for something else, like a dead elk, to fall on one end of the tree, lifting whatever (lighter) thing might be on the other.| This system doesn't function at all until intelligence assigns it a function and decides to use it as a lever. Same with your bridge. |
No, they will function just fine. You're trying to conflate function with meaning, but that won't fly here.| Is a hammer laying in a tool box an ICS? Of course not, it has no function at all until I pick it up and assign it one. |
If the hammer happens to be laying on a piece of paper, then it functions as a paperweight just fine without any intelligent input.| So your examples require intelligence in there somewhere to function at all, will you agree with that? |
Not at all. There's no need for anything to "assign" a "bridge" function to a tree across a gorge: ants walking across it (using it as a bridge) won't understand anything about its "bridgy-ness." They don't care if it's a bridge or not, but they'll use it as one. That's the problem with conflating function and meaning: unintelligent processes don't care one whit about meaning, but they'll function just fine.| No homework for me here. Were you not the one who stated something to the effect that things we know to be designed are always designed by humans. |
Name something we can agree was designed by an intelligence, but we don't know if it was designed by humans.| So you don't think your sweater is designed? And if you do, how do you know? |
I know how sweaters are designed, from watching them being knitted, so when presented with a random sweater, I can say, "I know how that was made." No science there, no "design detection," just observation and deduction.
More later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 15:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
| If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101? |
BAHAHAhahahah.....There is no such thing as Evolution 101....
|
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 16:59:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Originally posted by JerryB
| If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101? |
BAHAHAhahahah.....There is no such thing as Evolution 101....
|
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
|
That is an online article from Berkely, not a college course one can sign up for....LOL.....Genetics and Evolution 205 is where the introduction to evolution begins at the college level. Google it.
Use some danged common sense. There are prerequisite courses that one must take to understand the course content. For example, do you really think that one could understand evolution without having taken biology 101? DUH.
Oh, I'm sure you can find some podunk college that Ham or Hovind put together that offers it, but not a government (i.e. state sponsored) university that does.
That is the way it was when I went to college. If it has changed, reference it. You won't.
|
| Edited by - JerryB on 01/02/2011 17:53:03 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
