Evolution and Logical Fallacies - Dr. Jason Lisle

[RaphaCam]

Nice video. It is kind of basic on studying logics but many people may benefit from it, inconsistency in one's own thought is usually what makes people buy the first good speaker.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know about Lisle, Rapha. I'm very suspicious of guys like that. For one thing, he publishes via Kindle, an online vanity press. Also, he has no real education in apologetics, biblical languages, archaeology, etc. If you got something out of him, great. But if I were you, I'd be very careful here.

 

[pat34lee]

One of the things Jason left out is the DNA is not the only form of information in a living cell. The living cell itself has the ability to permit DNA to change in hot spots in order to find a ways around a problem but often it comes at a cost. It just like a computer program can use trial and error to fine tune a solution to a problem... thus adding information. The computer program itself requires a huge amount of information. The amount of information gain by a random process is very limited.

And what must either begin with in order to
work? Design and a creator. Someone has to
tell the program what to do in normal use and
what to do when things go wrong. Not even the
best computer software can fix code. DNA can.

 

[Hoghead1]

And what must either begin with in order to
work? Design and a creator. Someone has to
tell the program what to do in normal use and
what to do when things go wrong. Not even the
best computer software can fix code. DNA can.

Ads I said in an above post, Lisle is hardly a reliable source.

 

[Smidlee]

And what must either begin with in order to
work? Design and a creator. Someone has to
tell the program what to do in normal use and
what to do when things go wrong. Not even the
best computer software can fix code. DNA can.

This is not the case. DNA doesn't do anything. What do you think would happen if you took DNA out of a cell and put it in a dish to watch it for 100 years?

 

[pat34lee]

This is not the case. DNA doesn't do anything. What do you think would happen if you took DNA out of a cell and put it in a dish to watch it for 100 years?

The same thing your computer would do if you
remove the hard drive and memory. What is
your point? No, the DNA is not the active part;
neither is our brain, but it is the information center.

 

[chilehed]

... The amount of information gain by a random process is very limited.

False. By definition, random processes result in larger increases in information than non-random ones.

You're confusing "information" with "meaning".

 

[Smidlee]

False. By definition, random processes result in larger increases in information than non-random ones.

You're confusing "information" with "meaning".

No you took my words out of context since computer programs runs on "functional information". Just adding bits haphazardly just anywhere on a program will break it.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information.html

 

[Radrook]

This is not the case. DNA doesn't do anything. What do you think would happen if you took DNA out of a cell and put it in a dish to watch it for 100 years?

How about with limitless time and billions upon billions of highly statistically improbable happy accidents?

 

[chilehed]

No you took my words out of context since computer programs runs on "functional information". Just adding bits haphazardly just anywhere on a program will break it.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information.html

The context was a video you posted. In the video, Jason Lisle quotes Lee Spetner, who claims that "all point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it", and then says the "the laws of information science tell us that information always originates in a mind". Both of those statements are false.

During a point mutation, at least two distinct types of information entropy are affected. One has to do with the information associated with the order of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule, and that one could increase or decrease. The other has to do with the thermodynamic information of the system, and that one ALWAYS increases.

Meaning originates in a mind, and by definition character strings that are meaningful have less information than strings that are random. That includes computer programs.

As randomness increases, so does information, because, in information theory, by definition information is a measure of randomness. The Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids a decrease in thermodynamic information in any real event, but it does not forbid a decrease in other kinds of information.

The definition given at that link is completely irrelevant, because it's a definition from a totally different field. In fact, it's backwards.

 

[Smidlee]

The context was a video you posted. In the video, Jason Lisle quotes Lee Spetner, who claims that "all point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it", and then says the "the laws of information science tell us that information always originates in a mind". Both of those statements are false.

Not if you are referring to functional information which I made very clear that there are multiply levels of information in a cell that the cell can make changes to it's DNA.

During a point mutation, at least two distinct types of information entropy are affected. One has to do with the information associated with the order of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule, and that one could increase or decrease. The other has to do with the thermodynamic information of the system, and that one ALWAYS increases.

DNA is not the only level of information in living cells . It's just like a computer program can change variables and saved it to a "file"; as a saved game for a PC game. The hardware has it's own layers of information build-in to allow me to save my PC game and play it later. All this information is the result of both the complex information of the hardware and software combined. A save game is limited to only changing variables within a given game which is fine-tuned to used that information.

Meaning originates in a mind, and by definition character strings that are meaningful have less information than strings that are random. That includes computer programs.

As randomness increases, so does information, because, in information theory, by definition information is a measure of randomness. The Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids a decrease in thermodynamic information in any real event, but it does not forbid a decrease in other kinds of information.

The definition given at that link is completely irrelevant, because it's a definition from a totally different field. In fact, it's backwards.

Even the randomness of information created by a computer is the product of intelligence; both software and hardware.
The random bits of information is extremely small compared to the complexity over both hardware and software of a PC which is necessary for the random bits to even exist. It's even more complex with living cells that can reproduce and well find it's own energy source.

The law of thermodynamic deals directly with energy but also has boarder applications. These laws boarder application explain why everything slowly falls apart. Information which has no mass or energy can ride on both them. Any form of information that rides on energy and matter will slowly be destroyed. This is why intelligence is required to increase to overcome the incredible odds of energy and matter naturally destroying information which rides on them.

 

[chilehed]

Not if you are referring to functional information which I made very clear that there are multiply levels of information in a cell that the cell can make changes to it's DNA.

He said "information", not "functional information". They are two entirely different things, as different as temperature and color, and I assume that he meant what he said.

"Information" is a measure of the randomness of a system, ∑ pi log(1/pi), where pi is the probability of any of the microstates of the system. Information is entirely unrelated to anything other than the state variables that define the system.

"Functional information" is a measure of of the probability that an arbitrary microstate will achieve a specific function to a specified degree, I(Ex) = −log2[F(Ex)], where x is a specific function, Ex is a degree of function and F(Ex) is the fraction of all microstates that will possess a degree of function greater than (Ex). Functional information is related to the specified function, and a single system in a single state will have a different amount of functional information for different specified functions.

He said "information", and what he said about information is patently false. I bet filet mignon against a Happy Meal that, even if he meant to say "functional information", he's never actually done the math (or even seen it done by someone who knows how) and is just waving his hands in the air. And the fact that the function of the DNA changed is the entire point, so complaining that its functional information changed is silly. In fact, if the function is "survive in the environment in which you exist" (which ultimately is the only function that matters), then if the environment gets harsher the functional information of the DNA will be reduced without any mutations at all.

Any form of information that rides on energy and matter will slowly be destroyed. This is why intelligence is required to increase to overcome the incredible odds of energy and matter naturally destroying information which rides on them.

Again, you are confusing "meaning" with "information". They are very different things.

 

[Smidlee]

He said "information", not "functional information". They are two entirely different things, as different as temperature and color, and I assume that he meant what he said.
...

I'm speaking for myself and you quoted my statement personally. I'm responding you personally. I was clearly referring to functional information.

Again, you are confusing "meaning" with "information". They are very different things.

No. I'm referring to information riding on energy or matter. A plastic DVD has information written on it for example.

 

[Speedwell]

Correct, and the amount of information may be calculated as chilehed explained. It is entirely independent of whatever words or music may be encoded in it, or whether there is anything meaningful encoded at all.

 

[Smidlee]

Correct, and the amount of information may be calculated as chilehed explained. It is entirely independent of whatever words or music may be encoded in it, or whether there is anything meaningful encoded at all.

Information often is very hard to be calculated. What may seem like a butch of noise to an average person may contain a hidden code seen by a spy. Ex: a PC has multiply layers of information.

 

[Speedwell]

But the spy's hidden code is not "information" in the sense we are talking about. "Information" is a mathematical characterization of a pattern of physical entities. Whether there is a message encoded in that pattern is an entirely separate issue.

 

[Smidlee]

But the spy's hidden code is not "information" in the sense we are talking about.

Only the most basic forms of information can be calculated as in the number of bits in a program but in reality information is often on multiple levels.

 

[Speedwell]

Only the most basic forms of information can be calculated as in the number of bits in a program but in reality information is often on multiple levels.

Not in real Information Theory. "Information" is nothing but a statistical measure of the randomness of a signal. That is how information is defined by IT and that is the kind of information found in DNA. No coded messages.

 

[chilehed]

I'm speaking for myself and you quoted my statement personally. I'm responding you personally. I was clearly referring to functional information.
No. I'm referring to information riding on energy or matter. A plastic DVD has information written on it for example.

I understand what you're referring to. You appear to not understand what the words mean, or how the math works.

 

[Speedwell]

How about with limitless time and billions upon billions of highly statistically improbable happy accidents?

No, that wouldn't do it either. Fortunately, evolution doesn't work that way.